the of state homelessness in americareachadvocacy.org/.../12/stateofhomelessness-min.pdf · the...

The of

H O M E L E SS N E SSSTAT E

i N A M E r i cA20 16

an examination of trends in homelessness, homeless assistance,

and at-risk populations at the national and state levels.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is a leading voice on the issue of homelessness. To accomplish its mission of ending homelessness, the Alliance uses data and research to identify the nature of, and solutions to, the problem. It analyzes policy to deter-mine how best to advance these solutions. And, it helps build the capacity of communities to implement strategies that help them end homelessness.

The Homelessness Research Institute (HRI), the research and education arm of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, works to end homelessness by building and disseminating knowledge. The goals of HRI are to build the intellectual capital around solutions to homelessness; to advance data and research to ensure that policymakers, practitioners, and the caring public have the best information about trends in homelessness and emerging solutions; and to engage the media to promote the proliferation of solid data and information on homelessness.

E x E c u T i v E S u M M A ry

02

chapter one

H O M E L E S S N E S S i N A M E r i c A

06

chapter two

P O P u L AT i O N S AT r i S K O F H O M E L E S S N E S S

36

chapter three

H O M E L E S S A S S i S TA N c E i N A M E r i c A

54

A P P E N d i x : M E T H O d O L O g y

76

E x E c u T i v E Su M M A ry

The State of Homelessness in America 2016 is the sixth in a series of reports chart-ing progress in ending homelessness in the United States. It is intended to serve as a desktop reference for policymakers, journalists, and community and state leaders.

rEPOrT cONTENTS

This report uses the most recently available data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to present national and state trends in homelessness, populations at risk of homelessness, and the types and utilization of homeless assistance. Chapter 1 details national and state trends from 2014 to 2015 in the overall homeless population and subpopulations, including individuals, families, and veterans. Chapter 2 presents trends in populations at risk of homelessness from 2013 to 2014, including households ex-periencing severe housing cost burden and people living doubled up with family and friends. Chapter 3 analyzes trends in the types and scope of assistance available to people experiencing homelessness and utilization of those resources from 2014 to 2015.

The STaTe Of hOmeleSSneSS in america execuTive Summary

3

rEPOrT HigHLigHTS

Homelessness

On a single night in January 2015, 564,708 people were experiencing homelessness1 — meaning they were sleeping outside or in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program. From 2014 to 2015, overall homelessness decreased by 2.0 percent and homelessness decreased among every major sub-population: unsheltered persons (1.2 percent), families (4.6 percent), chronically homeless individuals (1.0 percent), and veterans (4.0 percent). • In total, 33 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.)

reported decreases in overall homelessness, while 16 states reported increases. The states with decreases in homelessness were concentrated in the South and Midwest.

• Despite a national decrease in unsheltered homeless-ness, only 18 states reported decreases in the number of people living in unsheltered locations, including the street, cars, and abandoned buildings. The national decrease in unsheltered homelessness was driven in large part by decreases in unsheltered homelessness in Florida, Texas, and Georgia.

• The national rate of homelessness in 2015 fell to 17.7

homeless people per 10,000 people in the general population from 18.3 in 2014. The rates in individual states ranged from 111 in D.C. to 7 in Mississippi.

• The rate of veteran homelessness continued its

descent of the past several years to 24.8 homeless veterans per 10,000 veterans in the general population. The rates in individual states ranged from 145 in D.C. to 9 in Virginia.

• The majority of states had decreases in every major subpopulation: family homelessness (33 states and D.C.), chronically homeless individuals (31 states and D.C.), and veteran homelessness (33 states).

PoPulations at Risk of Homelessness

Many poor people are at risk of homelessness. Ultimately, this is because it is hard for them to afford housing. Unemployment, housing cost burden, and living doubled up are indications of this struggle to afford housing. Longitudinal trends and changes from 2013 to 2014 indicate populations at risk of homelessness may be starting to benefit from the economic recovery. • In 2014, 7 million people in poor households were

doubled up with family and friends, the most common prior living situation before becoming homeless. This represents a 9 percent decrease from 2013 and the first significant decrease in the size of this at- risk population since the Great Recession. Forty-seven states and D.C. had decreases. Still, the number of people in poor households living doubled up is 52 percent higher now than in 2007, prior to the recession.

• The number of poor renter households experienc-

ing severe housing cost burden, those households in poverty paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing, totaled 6.6 million in 2014, increas-ing 2.1 percent nationally from 2013, with 32 states seeing an increase. Since 2007, the number of poor households with severe housing cost burden has increased 27.7 percent and has plateaued since the recession instead of decreasing with the recovery.

• From 2013 to 2014, the number of unemployed people

fell 16 percent, and the unemployment rate continued its multi-year decline, falling to 6.2 percent in 2014. Every state and D.C. saw decreases in the number of unemployed people.

• The number of people in poverty (48.2 million) and the

poverty rate (15.5 percent) remained relatively steady in 2014. Thirty-two states and D.C. saw a decrease in the number of people in poverty; 18 saw an increase.

1 National estimates of homelessness include Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, but these jurisdictions are not included in the totals of states seeing increases or decreases.

ExEcutivE summary thE statE Of hOmElEssnEss in amErica

4

Homeless assistance system

Communities across the country respond to homeless-ness with a variety of housing and services programs, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, and permanent supportive housing. The HEARTH Act, passed in 2009, placed a greater emphasis on permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing as permanent housing solutions to homelessness. The shift away from transitional housing to permanent housing began to be seen in 2013 and has continued in 2015. • Rapid re-housing capacity grew dramatically for

a second year—an increase of 22,529 beds. This repre-sents a 59.6 percent increase from 2014 to 2015 and a 204 percent increase from 2013 to 2015. Thirty-eight states and D.C. increased rapid re-housing capacity from 2014 to 2015.

• The number of permanent supportive housing beds continued to grow from 2014 to 2015 by 18,930 beds (6.3 percent) to a total of 319,212 beds. Thirty-five states reported increases and 15 states and D.C. reported decreases.

• Transitional housing capacity continued to decrease

nationwide with 40 states and D.C. reducing capacity. Despite the decrease in capacity, utilization of tran-sitional housing was low, with 81.7 percent of beds filled at the time of the point-in-time count. This is the lowest utilization of transitional housing recorded since 2007.

MOviNg FOrwArd

The number of people who are homeless, defined as those sleeping outside and in homeless assistance programs, continues to decrease despite the fact that the size of low-income populations in at-risk housing situations remains significantly above pre-recession levels. These decreases are likely due in part to the effectiveness of targeted federal funding to address homelessness administered by a variety of federal agencies, including HUD, the U.S. Department

of Veteran Affairs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Education. These federal programs and the public and private homeless assistance efforts in states and local communities have increasingly shifted to a focus on permanent housing solutions, such as permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing. Since 2007, permanent supportive housing capacity has grown 69 percent nationally and, since beginning to be funded by HUD McKinney-Vento homeless assistance pro-grams in 2013, rapid re-housing capacity has grown 204 percent nationally.

Homelessness may be decreasing, probably due in part to improvements in homeless assistance and increasing investment in proven solutions by the federal govern-ment, but this alone cannot overcome the inability of low-income households to afford housing. Housing is difficult to access and maintain for a large swath of the American public due to a lack of affordable housing stock combined with insufficient and stagnant incomes. This was the case prior to the recession, worsened during the recession, and has not improved substantially since the end of the recession. In fact, it appears that lower-income populations may not be experiencing the same benefits of the improving economy as those in higher income levels despite decreases in unemployment. And, the recovery of the housing market is making housing even more difficult to afford than earl ier in the recovery when rents remained lower. Simultaneously, many low-income assistance programs are facing federal spending cuts and caps. The homeless assistance system is doing what it can to serve those in the country with the most desperate housing needs, but the federal government should prioritize investment in affordable housing and other efforts to improve economic conditions for low-income populations.

The STaTe Of hOmeleSSneSS in america execuTive Summary

5

PHOTOGRAPHy CREDIT: PORNSAK PAEwLUMFAEK/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

12 Every year, during the last 10 days of January, communities across the country conduct an enumeration of homeless persons living in emergency shelter, transitional housing, or on the street, in what is commonly known as a point-in-time count. See page 10 for more information on point-in-time counts.

3 For the purposes of this report, homelessness or homeless refers to the definition set by HUD, which considers an individual homeless if he or she lives in an emergency shelter, transitional housing program (including safe havens), or a place not meant for human habitation, such as a car, abandoned building, or on the streets.

4 Unaccompanied children and youth were first differentiated in the point-in-time counts in 2013 and communities are still adopting and developing strategies to ensure that homeless youth are captured during the point-in-time count.

CHAPTER ONE

H O M E L E SS N E SS i N A M E r i cA

The January 2015 point-in-time count,2 which identified 564,708 people experiencing

homelessness,3 is the most recent national estimate of homelessness in the United

States. This translates to a national rate of homelessness of fewer than 18 home-

less persons out of every 10,000 persons in the general public on a single night.

From 2014 to 2015, homelessness decreased overall and amongst every major

subpopulation: unsheltered homelessness, families, chronically homeless individuals,

and veterans. Homeless unaccompanied youth and children represented 6.5 percent

of the overall homeless population, but it remains unlikely that the point-in-time

counts present an accurate enumeration of this population.4

This chapter provides longitudinal national trends in overall homelessness and all subpopulations. State-by-state changes from 2014 to 2015 are detailed for overall homelessness and for each subpopulation.

The STaTe Of hOmeleSSneSS in america chapTer One

7

HOMELESS POPuLATiON ANd SubPOPuLATiONS

The January 2015 point-in-time count identified 564,708 people experiencing homelessness. Though the

vast majority of the homeless population (391,440 people) lived in some form of shelter or in transitional

housing at the time of the point-in-time count in 2015, approximately 31 percent (173,268 people) lived in a

place not meant for human habitation, such as the street or an abandoned building.

The largest subpopulation experiencing homelessness was individuals, comprising almost 63 percent of

all homeless people (358,422 people). About 37 percent were people in families (206,286 people in 64,197

households). Individuals who were chronically homeless represented almost 15 percent (83,170 people) of

the homeless population, while people in chronically homeless families made up approximately 2 percent

(13,105 people) of the homeless population. About 8 percent of the homeless population was made up

of veterans (47,725 people). Unaccompanied youth and children accounted for 6.5 percent of the total

homeless population (36,907 people).5

Figures 1.1 and 1.2 illustrate the breakdown of homeless populations and subpopulations in 2015.

figure 1.1 H O M E L E S S P O P u L AT i O N A N d S u b P O P u L AT i O N S , 2 0 1 5

5 An individual or family is considered chronically homeless if he or she or, in the case of a family, a head of a household, has a disabling condition and has been continuously homeless for 1 year or more or has experienced at least 4 episodes of homelessness in the last 3 years. Prior to the 2013 point-in-time count, information on chronic homelessness was collected only for individuals. Starting in 2013, information on chronic homelessness was collected for both individuals and families.

Chapter One the State Of hOmeleSSneSS in ameriCa

8

figure 1.2 M A J O r H O M E L E S S S u b P O P u L AT i O N S , 2 0 1 5


9

NATiONAL TrENdS iN THE HOMELESS POPuLATiON ANd SubPOPuLATiONSSince 2007, homelessness has decreased overall and across every subpopulation (see Figure 1.3), but the

most dramatic decreases in homelessness have been amongst veterans (35 percent decrease since 2009),

people living in unsheltered locations (32 percent decrease since 2007), and people experiencing chronic

homelessness (31 percent decrease since 2007).

figure 1.3

S u b P O P u L AT i O N T r E N d S , 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5


10

The State of Homelessness in America series and many prior reports on the incidence and prevalence of homelessness use point-in-time counts as the measure to evaluate progress in ending homeless-ness. on a given night in January, communities, organized into continuums of care (cocs), count the number of people experiencing homelessness in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and sleeping outside and in other places not meant for human habitation.6 electronic administrative records are used to enumerate people living in emergency shelters and transitional housing. an organized unsheltered count is conducted by outreach workers and volunteers who canvas cocs to enumerate the people who appear to be living in places not meant for human habitation. unsheltered counts are required every other year, although most communities conduct an unsheltered count annually.7 these two counts, the sheltered and unsheltered counts, provide infor-mation on nationwide trends in homelessness. cocs report the data to hud through the annual application for homeless assistance grants as well as through the homelessness data exchange (hdX). this data is disseminated through the annual homeless assessment report to congress (ahar).

the point-in-time counts are not without limita-tions. there is variation in count methodology year-to-year within and across communities. unsheltered counts have more limitations than sheltered counts and there is more variation in methodology. point-in-time counts are, however, the only measure that enumerates people experi-encing unsheltered homelessness in addition to those who are sheltered. and, despite its flaws, the annual point-in-time counts result in the most reliable estimate of people experiencing homeless-ness in the united states from which progress can be measured.

point-in-time counts are the only measure that capture sheltered and unsheltered people eXperiencing homelessness.

Point-In-Time

E ST i M AT E S of

H O M E L E SS N E SS

6 There are populations other than those captured in the point-in-time count that are eligible for homeless assistance services, including those who will be without housing within 14 days or are living unstably doubled up or couch-surfing.

7 Communities were mandated to conduct an unsheltered count in 2015, but not in 2014. 78 percent of communities completed an unsheltered count in 2014. For the purposes of the year-to-year comparisons between 2014 and 2015, if a community did not conduct an unsheltered count in 2014, the 2013 unsheltered number was used.


11

figure 1.4

c H A N g E i N N AT i O N A L r AT E O F H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5

NATiONAL ANd STATE rATES OF HOMELESSNESS

National trends and overall totals do not provide a complete picture of homelessness across the country.

Larger and more populous areas have greater numbers of people experiencing homelessness, but not nec-

essarily higher rates of homelessness. Similarly, as the overall population of the country grows, one may see

the homeless population grow, although the frequency of homelessness remains the same. By calculating

the rate of homelessness, one can see trends in homelessness in relation to the size of and trends in the

general population of the nation or an individual state.

In 2015, the national rate of people experiencing homelessness was 17.7 people experiencing homelessness

per 10,000 people in the general population. Since 2007, the size of the overall homeless population has

only decreased 12.8 percent, but the rate of homelessness has decreased by 17.7 percent. This indicates that

homelessness has decreased despite increases in the general population (see Figure 1.4).

Similarly, examining rates of homelessness can provide a clearer picture of the prevalence of homelessness

in individual states (see Figure 1.5). For example, Texas is the state with the 4th highest number of people

experiencing homelessness (23,678 people on a given night in 2015), but has a rate of homelessness signifi-

cantly lower than the national rate of homelessness.

figure 1.5

2 0 1 5 S TAT E r AT E S O F H O M E L E S S N E S S c O M PA r E d T O N AT i O N A L r AT E

National rate (17.7)

chapter one the state oF homelessness in america

12

the state oF homelessness in america chapter one

13


14

map 1.1

c H A N g E i N Ov E r A L L H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

STATE TrENdS iN HOMELESSNESS

oVeRall Homelessness

The number of people experiencing homelessness in America decreased by 2.0 percent from 2014 to 2015,

but trends varied among states: 33 states and D.C. reported decreases in overall homelessness, while 16

states reported increases (see Map 1.1 and Table 1.1).

States with decreases in homelessness were concentrated in the South and Midwest with many states in

those regions seeing significant decreases in homelessness. Additionally, large decreases were seen in three

large and populous states that are among the states with the most people experiencing homelessness:

Florida (5,642 people fewer), Texas (4,817 fewer people), and Georgia (2,731 fewer people).

Increases in homelessness were concentrated in the west and Northeast and the two states with the largest

homeless populations: New york (7,660 more people) and California (1,786 more people).

15


table 1.1

c H A N g E i N Ov E r A L L H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st 2015 homeless persons

2014 homeless persons % change 2015 rate per

10,000

ak 1,956 1,784 9.6% 26.5

al 3,970 4,561 -13.0% 8.2

ar 2,560 2,936 -12.8% 8.6

aZ 9,896 10,495 -5.7% 14.7

ca 115,738 113,952 1.6% 29.8

co 9,953 10,028 -0.7% 18.6

ct 4,047 4,450 -9.1% 11.3

dc 7,298 7,748 -5.8% 110.8

de 953 901 5.8% 10.2

fl 35,900 41,542 -13.6% 18.0

ga 13,790 16,521 -16.5% 13.7

gu 1,280 1,356 -5.6% -

hi 7,620 6,918 10.1% 53.7

ia 3,081 3,122 -1.3% 9.9

id 1,966 2,104 -6.6% 12.0

il 13,177 13,107 0.5% 10.2

in 5,863 5,971 -1.8% 8.9

ks 2,588 2,783 -7.0% 8.9

kY 4,538 5,089 -10.8% 11.0

la 4,081 4,606 -11.4% 8.8

ma 21,135 21,237 -0.5% 31.3

md 8,390 7,856 6.8% 14.0

me 2,372 2,726 -13.0% 17.8

mi 10,516 12,227 -14.0% 10.6

mn 7,546 8,377 -9.9% 13.8

mo 6,482 7,282 -11.0% 10.7

ms 1,983 2,226 -10.9% 6.6

st 2015 homeless persons

2014 homeless persons % change 2015 rate per

10,000

mt 1,709 1,745 -2.1% 16.7

nc 10,685 11,491 -7.0% 10.7

nd 1,305 1,258 3.7% 17.6

ne 2,744 3,026 -9.3% 14.6

nh 1,445 1,376 5.0% 10.9

nJ 10,098 11,671 -13.5% 11.3

nm 2,629 2,746 -4.3% 12.6

nv 8,743 8,582 1.9% 30.8

nY 88,250 80,590 9.5% 44.7

oh 11,182 11,823 -5.4% 9.6

ok 3,777 4,191 -9.9% 9.7

or 13,226 12,164 8.7% 33.3

pa 15,421 15,333 0.6% 12.1

pr 4,518 4,132 9.3% 12.7

ri 1,111 1,190 -6.6% 10.5

sc 5,354 5,057 5.9% 11.1

sd 1,036 885 17.1% 12.1

tn 9,123 9,415 -3.1% 13.9

tx 23,678 28,495 -16.9% 8.8

ut 3,025 3,081 -1.8% 10.3

va 7,001 7,020 -0.3% 8.4

vi 337 448 -24.8% -

vt 1,523 1,559 -2.3% 24.3

wa 19,419 18,442 5.3% 27.5

wi 6,057 6,055 0.0% 10.5

wv 1,835 2,013 -8.8% 9.9

wY 798 757 5.4% 14.2

usa 564,708 576,450 -2.0% 17.7

figure 1.6

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , Ov E r A L L H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 5


16

map 1.2

c H A N g E i N u N S H E LT E r E d H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

unsHelteRed Homelessness

Most people experiencing homelessness do so while in emergency shelter or transitional housing, but

approximately one-third (30.7 percent) of the homeless population was unsheltered during a single night

in January 2015. This means they were living in a place unfit for human habitation, such as on the street, in

a car, or in an abandoned building. Throughout Chapter 1, the proportion of each subpopulation that was

unsheltered nationally will be shown in a pie chart on the same page as state trends.

From 2014 to 2015, the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness decreased by 1.2 percent,

but most states (32 states and D.C.) reported increases in unsheltered homelessness (see Map 1.2 and Table

1.2). The national decrease in unsheltered homelessness is significantly driven by decreases in unsheltered

homelessness in three states: Florida (4,674 fewer people), Texas (2,781 fewer people), and Georgia (2,504

fewer people).


17

table 1.2

c H A N g E i N u N S H E LT E r E d H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st2015

unsheltered persons

2014 unsheltered

persons% change

aK 317 145 118.6%

al 1,027 1,043 -1.5%

ar 882 1,433 -38.5%

aZ 2,957 2,569 15.1%

ca 73,699 71,437 3.2%

co 2,819 1,945 44.9%

ct 626 919 -31.9%

dc 544 396 37.4%

de 37 37 0.0%

Fl 17,017 21,691 -21.5%

ga 5,803 8,307 -30.1%

gu 1,193 1,230 -3.0%

hi 3,843 3,105 23.8%

ia 203 196 3.6%

id 469 636 -26.3%

il 2,714 1,698 59.8%

in 583 403 44.7%

Ks 305 249 22.5%

Ky 742 831 -10.7%

la 1,191 1,103 8.0%

ma 593 759 -21.9%

md 1,796 1,589 13.0%

me 59 93 -36.6%

mi 1,072 2,152 -50.2%

mn 841 795 5.8%

mo 1,071 973 10.1%

ms 842 821 2.6%

st2015

unsheltered persons

2014 unsheltered

persons% change

mt 872 834 4.6%

nc 2,425 2,617 -7.3%

nd 486 464 4.7%

ne 123 109 12.8%

nh 132 133 -0.8%

nJ 974 935 4.2%

nm 454 428 6.1%

nv 4,215 3,785 11.4%

ny 4,022 4,103 -2.0%

oh 1,099 1,103 -0.4%

oK 778 932 -16.5%

or 7,395 6,063 22.0%

pa 1,428 1,032 38.4%

pr 3,097 2,726 13.6%

ri 36 20 80.0%

sc 1,896 1,808 4.9%

sd 136 55 147.3%

tn 3,244 3,032 7.0%

tX 7,486 10,267 -27.1%

ut 226 313 -27.8%

va 811 690 17.5%

vi 252 363 -30.6%

vt 150 163 -8.0%

Wa 7,121 5,902 20.7%

Wi 442 343 28.9%

Wv 432 430 0.5%

Wy 291 194 50.0%

usa 173,268 175,399 -1.2%


18

map 1.3

c H A N g E i N P E O P L E i N H O M E L E S S FA M i L i E S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

family Homelessness by state

The number of people in homeless families reported in point-in-time counts in 2015 decreased by 4.6

percent from 2014 to 206,286 people. The vast majority of those homeless families were in sheltered

locations (see Figure 1.7).

Decreases in family homelessness were wide-spread throughout the country with 33 states and D.C.

reporting decreases in people in homeless families from 2014 to 2015 (see Map 1.3 and Tables 1.3 and 1.4).

The three states with the largest decreases in people in homeless families were Florida (3,237 fewer people),

Texas (1,905 fewer people), and New Jersey (1,316 fewer people).

Increases in family homelessness were reported sporadically across the country 2015 (see Map 1.3 and

Tables 1.3 and 1.4), but the largest increase was reported in New york with an increase of 4,168 people in

1,023 family households.


19

figure 1.7

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , P E O P L E i N H O M E L E S S FA M i L i E S , 2 0 1 5

table 1.3

c H A N g E i N P E O P L E i N H O M E L E S S FA M i L i E S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st 2015 persons in Families

2014 persons in Families % change

aK 614 575 6.8%

al 1,102 1,446 -23.8%

ar 727 633 14.8%

aZ 3,348 4,301 -22.2%

ca 22,582 23,187 -2.6%

co 4,224 4,455 -5.2%

ct 1,328 1,381 -3.8%

dc 3,477 3,795 -8.4%

de 351 317 10.7%

Fl 9,575 12,812 -25.3%

ga 4,088 4,118 -0.7%

gu 974 1,024 -4.9%

hi 3,313 3,168 4.6%

ia 1,580 1,578 0.1%

id 794 870 -8.7%

il 5,025 5,757 -12.7%

in 1,949 2,018 -3.4%

Ks 1,122 1,250 -10.2%

Ky 1,387 1,737 -20.1%

la 864 1,162 -25.6%

ma 14,757 14,449 2.1%

md 3,007 2,876 4.6%

me 1,153 1,378 -16.3%

mi 3,970 4,692 -15.4%

mn 3,924 4,725 -17.0%

mo 3,048 2,975 2.5%

ms 508 512 -0.8%

st 2015 persons in Families

2014 persons in Families % change

mt 582 578 0.7%

nc 3,529 3,993 -11.6%

nd 441 372 18.5%

ne 1,024 1,133 -9.6%

nh 667 581 14.8%

nJ 3,909 5,225 -25.2%

nm 963 942 2.2%

nv 885 1,226 -27.8%

ny 52,115 47,947 8.7%

oh 3,617 4,119 -12.2%

oK 996 1,227 -18.8%

or 3,765 4,176 -9.8%

pa 6,816 6,974 -2.3%

pr 589 700 -15.9%

ri 405 411 -1.5%

sc 1,420 1,244 14.1%

sd 406 395 2.8%

tn 2,607 2,615 -0.3%

tX 7,413 9,318 -20.4%

ut 1,216 1,352 -10.1%

va 2,811 2,786 0.9%

vi 29 23 26.1%

vt 613 736 -16.7%

Wa 6,893 7,052 -2.3%

Wi 3,065 3,126 -2.0%

Wv 421 525 -19.8%

Wy 298 294 1.4%

usa 206,286 216,261 -4.6%


20

table 1.4

c H A N g E i N H O M E L E S S FA M i Ly H O u S E H O L d S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st 2015 Family households

2014 Family households % change

aK 180 193 -6.7%

al 360 457 -21.2%

ar 240 240 0.0%

aZ 1,002 1,295 -22.6%

ca 7,195 6,956 3.4%

co 1,242 1,317 -5.7%

ct 456 495 -7.9%

dc 1,131 1,231 -8.1%

de 115 104 10.6%

Fl 3,053 4,550 -32.9%

ga 1,236 1,291 -4.3%

gu 180 180 0.0%

hi 798 790 1.0%

ia 496 487 1.8%

id 251 264 -4.9%

il 1,648 1,880 -12.3%

in 636 654 -2.8%

Ks 346 395 -12.4%

Ky 467 564 -17.2%

la 285 376 -24.2%

ma 4,903 4,781 2.6%

md 970 948 2.3%

me 358 388 -7.7%

mi 1,285 1,521 -15.5%

mn 1,192 1,422 -16.2%

mo 926 902 2.7%

ms 152 179 -15.1%

st 2015 Family households

2014 Family households % change

mt 182 166 9.6%

nc 1,110 1,303 -14.8%

nd 123 120 2.5%

ne 327 347 -5.8%

nh 244 213 14.6%

nJ 1,346 1,716 -21.6%

nm 296 306 -3.3%

nv 279 397 -29.7%

ny 15,361 14,338 7.1%

oh 1,108 1,314 -15.7%

oK 343 400 -14.3%

or 1,179 1,275 -7.5%

pa 2,299 2,384 -3.6%

pr 170 208 -18.3%

ri 112 132 -15.2%

sc 510 445 14.6%

sd 125 121 3.3%

tn 869 804 8.1%

tX 2,316 2,784 -16.8%

ut 364 298 22.1%

va 890 883 0.8%

vi 10 9 11.1%

vt 201 239 -15.9%

Wa 2,154 2,182 -1.3%

Wi 954 1,007 -5.3%

Wv 129 173 -25.4%

Wy 93 89 4.5%

usa 64,197 67,513 -4.9%


21

cHRonic Homelessness

Chronic homelessness is defined as homelessness among people who have a disability—including serious

mental illness, chronic substance use disorders, or chronic medical issues—and who are homeless repeatedly

or for long periods of time. Starting in 2013, data was collected on both chronically homeless individuals

and families.

Chronic Homelessness Among Individuals

From 2014 to 2015, the total number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness fell by 1.0 percent

nationally and the majority of them were living in unsheltered locations (see Figure 1.8). In most states,

changes in chronic homelessness were of modest magnitude: 31 states and D.C. reported decreases; 18

states reported increases (see Map 1.4 and Table 1.5).

Three states reported large decreases in the number of chronically homeless individuals: Texas (1,174 few-

er people), Florida (822 fewer people), and Georgia (651 fewer people). An additional 6 states reported

decreases in chronic homelessness of at least one-third from 2014 to 2015: Utah (53.9 percent), Connecticut

(47.6 percent), Rhode Island (46.1 percent), Montana (39.8 percent), Kentucky (37.6 percent), and North

Dakota (36.9 percent).

Three states reported increases of significant magnitude in chronic homelessness from 2014 to 2015:

Oregon a 59.5 percent increase (1,314 people) and South Carolina a 236 percent increase (643 people).

California also reported an increase of 978 people experiencing chronic homelessness, a 3.5 percent

increase.


22

map 1.4

c H A N g E i N c H r O N i c A L Ly H O M E L E S S i N d i v i d uA L S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5


23

figure 1.8

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , c H r O N i c A L Ly H O M E L E S S i N d i v i d uA L S , 2 0 1 5

table 1.5

c H A N g E i N c H r O N i c A L Ly H O M E L E S S i N d i v i d uA L S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st2015 chronically

homeless individuals

2014 chronically homeless individuals

% change

aK 182 182 0.0%

al 557 618 -9.9%

ar 524 516 1.6%

aZ 1,246 904 37.8%

ca 29,178 28,200 3.5%

co 1,572 1,335 17.8%

ct 538 1,026 -47.6%

dc 1,593 1,609 -1.0%

de 64 88 -27.3%

Fl 6,021 6,843 -12.0%

ga 1,994 2,645 -24.6%

gu 27 24 12.5%

hi 1,372 1,109 23.7%

ia 201 211 -4.7%

id 164 156 5.1%

il 1,799 1,349 33.4%

in 608 542 12.2%

Ks 339 290 16.9%

Ky 383 614 -37.6%

la 735 743 -1.1%

ma 1,411 1,590 -11.3%

md 1,634 1,515 7.9%

me 193 218 -11.5%

mi 830 1,160 -28.4%

mn 1,124 885 27.0%

mo 875 735 19.0%

ms 233 275 -15.3%

st2015 chronically

homeless individuals

2014 chronically homeless individuals

% change

mt 154 256 -39.8%

nc 1,253 1,284 -2.4%

nd 70 111 -36.9%

ne 257 365 -29.6%

nh 257 301 -14.6%

nJ 1,182 1,150 2.8%

nm 621 617 0.6%

nv 585 697 -16.1%

ny 4,327 4,350 -0.5%

oh 1,160 1,340 -13.4%

oK 508 585 -13.2%

or 3,521 2,207 59.5%

pa 1,442 1,449 -0.5%

pr 1,615 1,567 3.1%

ri 110 204 -46.1%

sc 916 273 235.5%

sd 85 81 4.9%

tn 1,492 1,904 -21.6%

tX 3,778 4,952 -23.7%

ut 178 386 -53.9%

va 1,041 965 7.9%

vi 22 88 -75.0%

vt 139 199 -30.2%

Wa 2,261 2,311 -2.2%

Wi 361 436 -17.2%

Wv 352 424 -17.0%

Wy 86 105 -18.1%

usa 83,170 83,989 -1.0%


24

Chronic Homelessness Among Families

In 2015, 6.4 percent of all people in homeless families were chronically homeless (13,105 people) and they

were significantly more likely to be unsheltered. Over one-third of the people in families experiencing

chronic homelessness were unsheltered (see Figure 1.9), making up almost one-quarter of all people in

homeless families who are unsheltered. Three states report more than 1,000 people in chronically homeless

families: California (3,049 people), New york (2,789 people), and Massachusetts (1,150 people). Five states

report concentrations of people in chronically homeless families of more than 10 percent of all people in

homeless families: North Dakota (15.4 percent), Arkansas (13.6 percent), California (13.5 percent), Oregon

(13.0 percent), and Idaho (10.2 percent).

map 1.5

P E r c E N TA g E O F P E O P L E i N H O M E L E S S FA M i L i E S w H O A r E c H r O N i c A L Ly H O M E L E S S , 2 0 1 5


25

figure 1.9

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , c H r O N i c A L Ly H O M E L E S S P E O P L E i N FA M i L i E S , 2 0 1 5

table 1.6

P E r c E N TA g E O F P E O P L E i N H O M E L E S S FA M i L i E S w H O A r E c H r O N i c A L Ly H O M E L E S S , 2 0 1 5

st

2015 persons in chronically

homeless Families

2015 persons in homeless

Families

2015 percentage of persons in homeless

Families that are chronically homeless

aK 40 614 6.5%

al 50 1,102 4.5%

ar 99 727 13.6%

aZ 120 3,348 3.6%

ca 3,049 22,582 13.5%

co 305 4,224 7.2%

ct 45 1,328 3.4%

dc 197 3,477 5.7%

de 16 351 4.6%

Fl 519 9,575 5.4%

ga 143 4,088 3.5%

gu 126 974 12.9%

hi 162 3,313 4.9%

ia 74 1,580 4.7%

id 81 794 10.2%

il 113 5,025 2.2%

in 95 1,949 4.9%

Ks 40 1,122 3.6%

Ky 74 1,387 5.3%

la 38 864 4.4%

ma 1,150 14,757 7.8%

md 213 3,007 7.1%

me 24 1,153 2.1%

mi 105 3,970 2.6%

mn 272 3,924 6.9%

mo 150 3,048 4.9%

ms 10 508 2.0%

st

2015 persons in chronically

homeless Families

2015 persons in homeless

Families

2015 percentage of persons in homeless

Families that are chronically homeless

mt 12 582 2.1%

nc 111 3,529 3.1%

nd 68 441 15.4%

ne 65 1,024 6.3%

nh 60 667 9.0%

nJ 228 3,909 5.8%

nm 95 963 9.9%

nv 9 885 1.0%

ny 2,789 52,115 5.4%

oh 115 3,617 3.2%

oK 73 996 7.3%

or 490 3,765 13.0%

pa 148 6,816 2.2%

pr 141 589 23.9%

ri 20 405 4.9%

sc 104 1,420 7.3%

sd 10 406 2.5%

tn 158 2,607 6.1%

tX 526 7,413 7.1%

ut 55 1,216 4.5%

va 117 2,811 4.2%

vi 0 29 0.0%

vt 27 613 4.4%

Wa 221 6,893 3.2%

Wi 103 3,065 3.4%

Wv 34 421 8.1%

Wy 16 298 5.4%

usa 13,105 206,286 6.4%


26

map 1.6

c H A N g E i N v E T E r A N H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

VeteRan Homelessness

Veteran homelessness decreased by 4.0 percent from 2014 to 2015 across the nation. The majority of homeless

veterans were in shelters (66.0 percent) in 2014 (see Figure 1.10). Veteran homelessness decreased in most

states from 2014 to 2015 with 33 states reporting decreases; 17 states and D.C. reported increases (see Map

1.6 and Table 1.7). The majority of increases and decreases were modest with Arizona seeing the largest

percentage increase at 42.2 percent (362 veterans more) and Mississippi seeing the largest percentage

decrease at 26.2 percent (73 veterans).


27

figure 1.10

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , H O M E L E S S v E T E r A N S , 2 0 1 5

table 1.7

c H A N g E i N v E T E r A N H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 A N d r AT E O F v E T E r A N H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 1 5

st 2015 veterans

2014 veterans % change

2015 rate per 10,000 veterans

aK 180 178 1.1% 25.8

al 474 542 -12.5% 13.8

ar 456 361 26.3% 21.9

aZ 1,220 858 42.2% 25.3

ca 11,311 12,096 -6.5% 66.8

co 950 753 26.2% 25.1

ct 282 295 -4.4% 14.9

dc 408 406 0.5% 145.4

de 79 93 -15.1% 11.0

Fl 3,926 4,552 -13.8% 26.9

ga 1,548 1,443 7.3% 23.8

gu 23 36 -36.1% -

hi 692 593 16.7% 63.0

ia 207 202 2.5% 10.4

id 249 215 15.8% 21.5

il 1,226 1,234 -0.6% 19.2

in 790 725 9.0% 19.3

Ks 311 393 -20.9% 16.6

Ky 591 600 -1.5% 21.1

la 392 437 -10.3% 15.0

ma 1,133 1,264 -10.4% 33.5

md 714 654 9.2% 18.6

me 151 152 -0.7% 13.3

mi 1,067 1,122 -4.9% 17.8

mn 297 317 -6.3% 9.2

mo 540 652 -17.2% 12.3

ms 206 279 -26.2% 11.8

st 2015 veterans

2014 veterans % change

2015 rate per 10,000 veterans

mt 277 256 8.2% 32.8

nc 1,092 1,164 -6.2% 16.2

nd 137 151 -9.3% 27.3

ne 247 241 2.5% 19.3

nh 138 171 -19.3% 13.9

nJ 696 630 10.5% 19.3

nm 278 318 -12.6% 18.3

nv 860 1,036 -17.0% 40.5

ny 2,399 2,542 -5.6% 31.0

oh 1,183 1,236 -4.3% 15.6

oK 351 408 -14.0% 12.7

or 1,464 1,292 13.3% 49.6

pa 1,375 1,411 -2.6% 16.7

pr 164 87 88.5% 18.3

ri 107 108 -0.9% 16.8

sc 681 703 -3.1% 18.5

sd 177 132 34.1% 28.3

tn 945 1,142 -17.3% 21.0

tX 2,393 2,718 -12.0% 16.0

ut 337 317 6.3% 25.7

va 604 620 -2.6% 8.7

vi 34 32 6.3% -

vt 119 120 -0.8% 27.2

Wa 1,293 1,433 -9.8% 23.1

Wi 534 520 2.7% 14.5

Wv 305 333 -8.4% 21.7

Wy 112 116 -3.4% 24.7

usa 47,725 49,689 -4.0% 24.8


figure 1.12

S TAT E - by- S TAT E r AT E S O F v E T E r A N H O M E L E S S N E S S c O M PA r E d T O N AT i O N A L r AT E

Rates of VeteRan Homelessness

Similar to the rates of overall homelessness, one can see trends in veteran homelessness in relation to

the size of and trends in the general population of veterans in the nation or in an individual state. This is

particularly important with regards to veterans as a homeless subpopulation because veterans tend to be

concentrated in particular regions of the country. Per 10,000 veterans in the United States, 24.8 veterans

were homeless in the 2015 point-in-time count. The rate of homelessness among veterans has decreased

significantly since first calculated in the State of Homelessness in America 2009 at 32.7 homeless veterans

per 10,000 veterans in the general population to 24.8 in 2015 (see Figure 1.11). Rates of veteran homeless-

ness vary greatly among states, ranging from a high of 145.4 in the District of Columbia to a low of 8.7

in Virginia (see Figure 1.12 and Table 1.7).

chapter one the state oF homelessness in america

28


29

figure 1.11

c H A N g E i N N AT i O N A L r AT E O F v E T E r A N H O M E L E S S N E S S , 2 0 0 9 -2 0 1 5


30

unaccomPanied cHildRen and youtH by state

The number of unaccompanied children and youth8 found to be experiencing homelessness in the January

2015 point-in-time counts was 36,907. This number is not likely to be accurate, as youth are thought not

to be enumerated effectively with point-in-time counts methods currently used in a large number of CoCs.

There are limited beds available for this population nationwide, which impacts the size of the sheltered

population, and it is widely accepted that homeless young people do not congregate in the same areas as

older homeless adults. This means targeted outreach to youth during point-in-time counts is needed. It is

not clear how many CoCs implement specific strategies to capture unsheltered children and youth during

their point-in-time counts.

Nationally, youth made up 6.5 percent of the overall homeless population, but, in Nevada, where Las

Vegas undertook an extensive youth count, unaccompanied youth were found to account for 26.4 percent

of the overall homeless population (see Table 1.8 and Map 1.7). Because of this, changes in youth

homelessness from 2014 to 2015 are not presented as the data is considered less complete than data for

other subpopulations.

Still, these numbers provide a snapshot of unaccompanied children and youth homelessness in each state.

Unaccompanied children and youth are a population that appears to be particularly at risk of being unshel-

tered; with 51.0 percent of unaccompanied minors and 45.6 percent of youth ages 18 to 24 unsheltered (see

Figures 1.13 and 1.14). Only chronically homeless individuals are more likely to be unsheltered.

8 Unaccompanied children are those individuals experiencing homelessness who are unattached to a family household and under the age of 18. Unaccompanied youth are those individuals experiencing homelessness who are unattached to a family household and ages 18 to 24.


31

map 1.7

P E r c E N TA g E O F H O M E L E S S P E O P L E w H O A r E u N A c c O M PA N i E d c H i L d r E N A N d yO u T H , 2 0 1 5


32

figure 1.13

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , H O M E L E S S u N A c c O M PA N i E d c H i L d r E N, 2 0 1 5

st2015 sheltered

unaccompanied children

2015 unsheltered unaccompanied

children

2015 sheltered unaccompanied

youth (18-24)


youth (18-24)

2015 unaccompanied

children and youth

2015 children and youth percent of overall homeless

population

aK 18 6 105 26 155 7.9%

al 27 5 141 55 228 5.7%

ar 0 0 95 93 188 7.3%

aZ 79 4 371 167 621 6.3%

ca 260 632 2,204 7,320 10,416 9.0%

co 74 8 286 198 566 5.7%

ct 11 0 81 32 124 3.1%

dc 7 0 176 17 200 2.7%

de 3 0 53 1 57 6.0%

Fl 321 272 886 892 2,371 6.6%

ga 11 4 281 279 575 4.2%

gu 1 0 0 6 7 0.5%

hi 8 16 68 211 303 4.0%

ia 7 0 169 3 179 5.8%

id 3 1 88 37 129 6.6%

il 33 5 647 147 832 6.3%

in 36 0 297 40 373 6.4%

Ks 3 0 69 17 89 3.4%

Ky 27 0 167 54 248 5.5%

la 27 3 206 153 389 9.5%

ma 4 1 380 30 415 2.0%

md 22 32 305 122 481 5.7%

me 18 0 127 1 146 6.2%

mi 153 7 727 88 975 9.3%

mn 113 18 526 76 733 9.7%

mo 83 18 310 63 474 7.3%

ms 25 0 30 38 93 4.7%

table 1.8

H O M E L E S S u N A c c O M PA N i E d c H i L d r E N A N d yO u T H , 2 0 1 5


33

figure 1.14

S H E LT E r E d A N d u N S H E LT E r E d P r O P O rT i O N S , H O M E L E S S u N A c c O M PA N i E d yO u T H , 2 0 1 5

st2015 sheltered

unaccompanied children


children

2015 sheltered unaccompanied

youth (18-24)


youth (18-24)

2015 unaccompanied

children and youth

2015 children and youth percent of overall homeless

population

mt 6 7 35 123 171 10.0%

nc 63 16 405 147 631 5.9%

nd 18 0 95 29 142 10.9%

ne 29 0 191 18 238 8.7%

nh 5 1 77 8 91 6.3%

nJ 47 0 540 56 643 6.4%

nm 53 1 115 24 193 7.3%

nv 9 816 279 1,206 2,310 26.4%

ny 128 5 2,239 254 2,626 3.0%

oh 47 2 618 103 770 6.9%

oK 40 44 275 101 460 12.2%

or 62 326 386 576 1,350 10.2%

pa 28 9 717 117 871 5.6%

pr 11 2 51 109 173 3.8%

ri 4 0 35 8 47 4.2%

sc 12 1 114 68 195 3.6%

sd 8 0 75 25 108 10.4%

tn 3 11 451 208 673 7.4%

tX 185 33 612 586 1,416 6.0%

ut 11 0 95 26 132 4.4%

va 12 0 276 42 330 4.7%

vi 0 0 4 8 12 3.6%

vt 3 1 84 13 101 6.6%

Wa 91 63 609 578 1,341 6.9%

Wi 25 8 262 39 334 5.5%

Wv 11 0 92 42 145 7.9%

Wy 2 2 24 9 37 4.6%

usa 2,287 2,380 17,551 14,689 36,907 6.5%


34

cHAPTEr ONE SuMMAry

table 1.9 summarizes trends in the homeless population and subpopulations between point-in-time counts in January 2014 and January 2015.

table 1.9

c H A N g E S i N H O M E L E S S P O P u L AT i O N A N d S u b P O P u L AT i O N S , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st overall sheltered unsheltered individuals persons in Families

Family households

chronically homeless individuals

veterans

ak 9.6% 0.0% 118.6% 11.0% 6.8% -6.7% 0.0% 1.1%

al -13.0% -16.3% -1.5% -7.9% -23.8% -21.2% -9.9% -12.5%

ar -12.8% 11.6% -38.5% -20.4% 14.8% 0.0% 1.6% 26.3%

aZ -5.7% -12.5% 15.1% 5.7% -22.2% -22.6% 37.8% 42.2%

ca 1.6% -1.1% 3.2% 2.6% -2.6% 3.4% 3.5% -6.5%

co -0.7% -11.7% 44.9% 2.8% -5.2% -5.7% 17.8% 26.2%

ct -9.1% -3.1% -31.9% -11.4% -3.8% -7.9% -47.6% -4.4%

dc -5.8% -8.1% 37.4% -3.3% -8.4% -8.1% -1.0% 0.5%

de 5.8% 6.0% 0.0% 3.1% 10.7% 10.6% -27.3% -15.1%

fl -13.6% -4.9% -21.5% -8.4% -25.3% -32.9% -12.0% -13.8%

ga -16.5% -2.8% -30.1% -21.8% -0.7% -4.3% -24.6% 7.3%

gu -5.6% -31.0% -3.0% -7.8% -4.9% 0.0% 12.5% -36.1%

hi 10.1% -0.9% 23.8% 14.9% 4.6% 1.0% 23.7% 16.7%

ia -1.3% -1.6% 3.6% -2.8% 0.1% 1.8% -4.7% 2.5%

id -6.6% 2.0% -26.3% -5.0% -8.7% -4.9% 5.1% 15.8%

il 0.5% -8.3% 59.8% 10.9% -12.7% -12.3% 33.4% -0.6%

in -1.8% -5.2% 44.7% -1.0% -3.4% -2.8% 12.2% 9.0%

ks -7.0% -9.9% 22.5% -4.4% -10.2% -12.4% 16.9% -20.9%

kY -10.8% -10.9% -10.7% -6.0% -20.1% -17.2% -37.6% -1.5%

la -11.4% -17.5% 8.0% -6.6% -25.6% -24.2% -1.1% -10.3%

ma -0.5% 0.3% -21.9% -6.0% 2.1% 2.6% -11.3% -10.4%

md 6.8% 5.2% 13.0% 8.1% 4.6% 2.3% 7.9% 9.2%

me -13.0% -12.2% -36.6% -9.6% -16.3% -7.7% -11.5% -0.7%

mi -14.0% -6.3% -50.2% -13.1% -15.4% -15.5% -28.4% -4.9%

mn -9.9% -11.6% 5.8% -0.8% -17.0% -16.2% 27.0% -6.3%

mo -11.0% -14.2% 10.1% -20.3% 2.5% 2.7% 19.0% -17.2%

ms -10.9% -18.8% 2.6% -13.9% -0.8% -15.1% -15.3% -26.2%


35

st overall sheltered unsheltered individuals persons in Families

Family households

chronically homeless individuals

veterans

mt -2.1% -8.1% 4.6% -3.4% 0.7% 9.6% -39.8% 8.2%

nc -7.0% -6.9% -7.3% -4.6% -11.6% -14.8% -2.4% -6.2%

nd 3.7% 3.1% 4.7% -2.5% 18.5% 2.5% -36.9% -9.3%

ne -9.3% -10.1% 12.8% -9.1% -9.6% -5.8% -29.6% 2.5%

nh 5.0% 5.6% -0.8% -2.1% 14.8% 14.6% -14.6% -19.3%

nJ -13.5% -15.0% 4.2% -4.0% -25.2% -21.6% 2.8% 10.5%

nm -4.3% -6.2% 6.1% -7.6% 2.2% -3.3% 0.6% -12.6%

nv 1.9% -5.6% 11.4% 6.8% -27.8% -29.7% -16.1% -17.0%

nY 9.5% 10.1% -2.0% 10.7% 8.7% 7.1% -0.5% -5.6%

oh -5.4% -5.9% -0.4% -1.8% -12.2% -15.7% -13.4% -4.3%

ok -9.9% -8.0% -16.5% -6.2% -18.8% -14.3% -13.2% -14.0%

or 8.7% -4.4% 22.0% 18.4% -9.8% -7.5% 59.5% 13.3%

pa 0.6% -2.2% 38.4% 2.9% -2.3% -3.6% -0.5% -2.6%

pr 9.3% 1.1% 13.6% 14.5% -15.9% -18.3% 3.1% 88.5%

ri -6.6% -8.1% 80.0% -9.4% -1.5% -15.2% -46.1% -0.9%

sc 5.9% 6.4% 4.9% 3.2% 14.1% 14.6% 235.5% -3.1%

sd 17.1% 8.4% 147.3% 28.6% 2.8% 3.3% 4.9% 34.1%

tn -3.1% -7.9% 7.0% -4.2% -0.3% 8.1% -21.6% -17.3%

tx -16.9% -11.2% -27.1% -15.2% -20.4% -16.8% -23.7% -12.0%

ut -1.8% 1.1% -27.8% 4.6% -10.1% 22.1% -53.9% 6.3%

va -0.3% -2.2% 17.5% -1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 7.9% -2.6%

vi -24.8% 0.0% -30.6% -27.5% 26.1% 11.1% -75.0% 6.3%

vt -2.3% -1.6% -8.0% 10.6% -16.7% -15.9% -30.2% -0.8%

wa 5.3% -1.9% 20.7% 10.0% -2.3% -1.3% -2.2% -9.8%

wi 0.0% -1.7% 28.9% 2.2% -2.0% -5.3% -17.2% 2.7%

wv -8.8% -11.4% 0.5% -5.0% -19.8% -25.4% -17.0% -8.4%

wY 5.4% -9.9% 50.0% 8.0% 1.4% 4.5% -18.1% -3.4%

usa -2.0% -2.4% -1.2% -0.5% -4.6% -4.9% -1.0% -4.0%

9 The 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR) Part II (December 2015) showed that 74.3 percent of people who had housing prior to accessing shelter were living in the home of a family or friend.

2

CHAPTER TWO

P O P u L AT i O N S AT r i S K O F

H O M E L E SS N E SS

For the most part, people who ultimately become homeless have strained financial

resources and are challenged by the cost of housing. Lower income households

often pay large portions of their income towards housing. For those that cannot

afford housing independently, living with family and friends, known as doubling

up, in order to reduce individual housing-related costs, is an option. This is often

the last living situation of households that become homeless.9 The second most

common prior homelessness situation is living in rental housing—often that household is

facing a situation in which the majority of their income is dedicated to their rent.

The impacts of economics and housing trends are often delayed, meaning that

homelessness may not be affected by these factors immediately, but measures of

severe housing cost burden and people living doubled up show the pressing afford-

able housing issue and a looming threat to increases in homelessness. And, the sizes

of these populations are important for the purposes of understanding the magnitude

of people at risk of homelessness.

This chapter examines the trends in populations that are plausibly at risk of home-

lessness, starting with those that are in poverty and unemployed, followed by two

populations that are directly vulnerable to homelessness, those experiencing severe

housing cost burden and those that are living doubled up.

The STaTe Of hOmeleSSneSS in america chapTer TWO

37

TrENdS iN POPuLATiONS AT riSK OF HOMELESSNESS

National changes in economic and housing related factors between 2013 and 2014 show overall ongoing recovery from the Great Recession but present a mixed picture as it relates to the size of the population at risk of homelessness (see in Table 2.1). Despite the unemployment rate falling from 7.4 percent to 6.2 percent, the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate remained relatively unchanged. Additionally, the number of poor renter households paying more than 50 percent of their income towards housing—a group at particular risk of homelessness—increased by 2.1 percent to total 6.5 million. This is likely because, while incomes among poor households have not increased with the recovery, rents have increased as the housing market has recovered. In good news, there was a 9.0 percent decrease in the number of people in poor households doubled up with family and friends.

More striking than changes from 2013 to 2014 are the changes in populations at risk of homelessness from prior to the Great Recession to now (see Figure 2.1). while the number of people in poverty has been steadily increasing, the number of unemployed people has continuously decreased since peaking in 2009, suggesting that lower income populations are being left behind in the economic recovery and may in fact be strug-gling more because of the recovery of the housing market without a corresponding increase in incomes. The number of households experiencing severe housing cost burden appears to have plateaued at a higher level than was the case prior to the recession. And, despite a 9.0 percent decrease in doubling up from 2013 to 2014, the number of poor people living doubled up is 52 percent higher than it was in 2007.

table 2.1

AT- r i S K P O P u L AT i O N T r E N d S , 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

economic Factors 2014 2013 % change

persons in poverty 48,208,387 48,810,868 -1.2%

poverty rate* 15.5% 15.8% -0.3

unemployed persons 9,636,189 11,476,789 -16.0%

unemployment rate* 6.2% 7.4% -1.2

housing-related Factors 2014 2013 % change

poor renter households with severe housing cost burden 6,551,674 6,416,946 2.1%

people in poor households living doubled up 6,999,086 7,691,313 -9.0%

* Percent change column represents change in percentage point.

figure 2.1

N AT i O N A L E c O N O M i c A N d H O u S i N g - r E L AT E d T r E N d S , 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 4

38

chapter tWo the state oF homelessness in america


39

Chapter tWO the State Of hOmeleSSneSS in ameriCa

40

map 2.1

c H A N g E i N P E O P L E i N P Ov E rT y, 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

STATE TrENdS iN POPuLATiONS AT riSK OF HOMELESSNESS

PoVeRty

From 2013 to 2014, the number of people in poverty decreased slightly (1.2 percent). 32 states and D.C. saw decreases in poverty; 18 states saw increases (see Map 2.1 and Table 2.2). Alaska saw the largest percent increase in poverty (20.3 percent); Mississippi the largest percent decrease (10.5 percent).


41

table 2.2

c H A N g E i N P E O P L E i N P Ov E rT y, 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4 A N d P Ov E rT y r AT E , 2 0 1 4

st 2014 persons in poverty

2013 persons in poverty % change

2014 poverty

rate

aK 80,627 67,016 20.3% 11.2%

al 910,175 883,371 3.0% 19.3%

ar 543,882 565,469 -3.8% 18.9%

aZ 1,199,061 1,206,460 -0.6% 18.2%

ca 6,259,098 6,328,824 -1.1% 16.4%

co 630,786 667,446 -5.5% 12.0%

ct 374,772 373,900 0.2% 10.8%

dc 110,666 115,551 -4.2% 17.7%

de 113,508 111,327 2.0% 12.5%

Fl 3,211,615 3,253,333 -1.3% 16.5%

ga 1,797,969 1,843,768 -2.5% 18.3%

hi 156,729 148,368 5.6% 11.4%

ia 367,816 379,127 -3.0% 12.2%

id 237,981 246,550 -3.5% 14.8%

il 1,804,535 1,845,393 -2.2% 14.4%

in 974,218 1,015,127 -4.0% 15.2%

Ks 382,712 393,358 -2.7% 13.6%

Ky 817,542 800,635 2.1% 19.1%

la 896,524 888,019 1.0% 19.8%

ma 757,235 770,513 -1.7% 11.6%

md 589,818 585,571 0.7% 10.1%

me 182,791 180,639 1.2% 14.1%

mi 1,568,844 1,648,436 -4.8% 16.2%

mn 611,354 592,422 3.2% 11.5%

mo 908,628 931,066 -2.4% 15.5%

ms 623,113 695,915 -10.5% 21.5%

st 2014 persons in poverty

2013 persons in poverty % change

2014 poverty

rate

mt 153,954 163,637 -5.9% 15.4%

nc 1,668,686 1,715,397 -2.7% 17.2%

nd 82,264 82,398 -0.2% 11.5%

ne 227,310 239,433 -5.1% 12.4%

nh 117,983 111,495 5.8% 9.2%

nJ 972,903 998,549 -2.6% 11.1%

nm 436,153 448,461 -2.7% 21.3%

nv 426,730 433,576 -1.6% 15.2%

ny 3,062,938 3,055,645 0.2% 15.9%

oh 1,785,780 1,796,942 -0.6% 15.8%

oK 623,840 626,906 -0.5% 16.6%

or 644,450 642,138 0.4% 16.6%

pa 1,682,212 1,690,405 -0.5% 13.6%

ri 145,596 144,446 0.8% 14.3%

sc 843,860 860,380 -1.9% 18.0%

sd 116,843 115,454 1.2% 14.2%

tn 1,171,307 1,126,772 4.0% 18.3%

tX 4,523,708 4,530,039 -0.1% 17.2%

ut 339,900 361,181 -5.9% 11.7%

va 953,395 938,733 1.6% 11.8%

vt 73,149 74,058 -1.2% 12.2%

Wa 913,619 967,282 -5.5% 13.2%

Wi 738,270 755,551 -2.3% 13.2%

Wv 327,764 332,347 -1.4% 18.3%

Wy 63,774 62,039 2.8% 11.2%

usa 48,208,387 48,810,868 -1.2% 15.5%

figure 2.3

2 0 1 4 S TAT E - by- S TAT E r AT E O F P Ov E rT y c O M PA r E d T O N AT i O N A L r AT E


PoVeRty Rate

In 2014, the national rate of people experiencing poverty was 15.5 percent. This rate is not significantly different than it was in 2013, but is significantly higher than the rate in 2007, prior to the recession (see Figure 2.2).

Similar to examining rates of homelessness (see Chapter 1), looking at poverty rates state-by-state can provide a clearer picture of the comparative risk of being impoverished in individual states (see Figure 2.3). Despite a large decrease in poverty from 2013 to 2014, Mississippi remains the state with the highest poverty rate at 21.5 percent. Similarly, despite a significant increase in poverty from 2013 to 2014, New Hampshire remained the state with the lowest poverty rate at 9.2 percent.

while the prevalence of poverty is an important measure of the risk of homelessness in a given state, Mississippi and New Hampshire serve as good examples of how being at risk of homelessness is not only a matter of being low income. The poverty rate in Mississippi is more than double that in New Hampshire, but the rate of homelessness in Mississippi is almost half of that in New Hampshire. One possible reason for this is that housing in significantly more expensive in New Hampshire than it is in Mississippi—in 2014, to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment in Mississippi, a household would need to make $13.67 per hour in a full-time job; in New Hampshire the households would need to earn $20.50 an hour.10

10 Out of Reach,2015, National Low Income Housing Coalition

42


43

the state oF homelessness in america chapter tWo

figure 2.2

c H A N g E i N N AT i O N A L P Ov E rT y r AT E , 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 4


44

map 2.2

c H A N g E i N N u M b E r O F u N E M P L Oy E d P E O P L E , 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

unemPloyment

Unemployment often precedes homelessness and is frequently cited in research as a risk factor for experiencing homelessness. This factor is measured by the number of people in the workforce who are actively seeking a job but do not have one. From 2013 to 2014, the number of unemployed people decreased significantly (16.0 percent) with all 50 states and D.C. seeing decreases in the number of unemployed people (see Map 2.2 and Table 2.3). The states with the largest percent decreases in the number of unemployed people were Colorado (25.2 percent) and Ohio (23.2 percent). California saw the largest decrease in the number of unemployed people, more than 250,000.


45

table 2.3

c H A N g E i N N u M b E r O F u N E M P L Oy E d P E O P L E , 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4A N d u N E M P L Oy M E N T r AT E , 2 0 1 4

st2014

unemployed persons

2013 unemployed

persons

% change

2014 unemployment

rate

aK 24,956 25,205 -1.0% 6.8%

al 146,208 156,998 -6.9% 6.8%

ar 79,733 96,148 -17.1% 6.1%

aZ 212,985 237,229 -10.2% 6.9%

ca 1,414,276 1,668,743 -15.2% 7.5%

co 141,387 189,023 -25.2% 5.0%

ct 124,705 144,580 -13.7% 6.6%

dc 29,399 31,742 -7.4% 7.8%

de 25,854 29,702 -13.0% 5.7%

Fl 603,296 690,157 -12.6% 6.3%

ga 342,365 390,799 -12.4% 7.2%

hi 29,153 31,552 -7.6% 4.4%

ia 75,249 79,755 -5.6% 4.4%

id 37,404 47,033 -20.5% 4.8%

il 460,363 594,127 -22.5% 7.1%

in 194,959 244,752 -20.3% 6.0%

Ks 67,994 79,202 -14.2% 4.5%

Ky 130,106 165,262 -21.3% 6.5%

la 137,577 141,689 -2.9% 6.4%

ma 204,809 236,540 -13.4% 5.8%

md 181,352 206,890 -12.3% 5.8%

me 39,876 46,929 -15.0% 5.7%

mi 347,972 421,928 -17.5% 7.3%

mn 121,626 146,423 -16.9% 4.1%

mo 186,901 202,049 -7.5% 6.1%

ms 96,343 110,887 -13.1% 7.8%

st2014

unemployed persons

2013 unemployed

persons

% change

2014 unemployment

rate

mt 24,346 27,914 -12.8% 4.7%

nc 285,815 370,326 -22.8% 6.1%

nd 11,503 11,868 -3.1% 2.8%

ne 33,903 38,571 -12.1% 3.3%

nh 31,959 37,723 -15.3% 4.3%

nJ 300,277 369,958 -18.8% 6.6%

nm 60,057 63,690 -5.7% 6.5%

nv 108,125 132,137 -18.2% 7.8%

ny 605,041 740,805 -18.3% 6.3%

oh 327,969 426,918 -23.2% 5.7%

oK 80,203 96,430 -16.8% 4.5%

or 134,956 150,186 -10.1% 6.9%

pa 369,962 477,843 -22.6% 5.8%

ri 42,430 51,540 -17.7% 7.7%

sc 141,451 166,641 -15.1% 6.4%

sd 15,228 16,813 -9.4% 3.4%

tn 200,633 239,328 -16.2% 6.7%

tX 663,997 800,537 -17.1% 5.1%

ut 54,158 65,722 -17.6% 3.8%

va 220,070 241,165 -8.7% 5.2%

vt 14,305 15,529 -7.9% 4.1%

Wa 217,821 243,072 -10.4% 6.2%

Wi 170,385 208,266 -18.2% 5.5%

Wv 51,508 53,956 -4.5% 6.5%

Wy 13,239 14,507 -8.7% 4.3%

usa 9,636,189 11,476,789 -16.0% 6.2%

figure 2.5

2 0 1 4 S TAT E - by- S TAT E u N E M P L Oy M E N T r AT E c O M PA r E d T O N AT i O N A L r AT E

National rate (6.2)

unemPloyment Rate

In 2014, the national unemployment rate of people experiencing poverty was 6.2 percent, approaching pre-recession rates and falling 1.2 percentage points since 2013. (see Figure 2.4).

Similar to examining rates of homelessness (see Chapter 1) and poverty, looking at unemployment rates state-by-state can provide a clearer picture of the comparative risk of being unemployed in individual states (see Figure 2.5). with a slight decrease in unemployment, North Dakota maintained the lowest unemployment rate at 2.8 percent. D.C. and Nevada, despite a large decrease in unemployment, had the highest unemploy-ment rates at 7.8 percent.

10 Out of Reach 2015, National Low Income Housing Coalition

46


47

the state oF homelessness in america chapter tWo

figure 2.4

c H A N g E i N N AT i O N A L u N E M P L Oy M E N T r AT E , 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 4


48

map 2.3

c H A N g E i N P O O r r E N T E r H O u S E H O L d S w i T H S E v E r E H O u S i N g c O S T b u r d E N, 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

PooR RenteR HouseHolds WitH seVeRe HousinG cost buRden

when more than 50 percent of a poor household’s income goes to paying rent, that household is experienc-

ing what is known as severe housing cost burden. Households that fall into this category spend a dispro-

portionate amount of income on housing, and are more likely to have an unexpected event—such as loss of

employment or unexpected medical costs—result in an experience of homelessness.

Nationally, the number of poor renter households with severe housing cost burden increased slightly (2.1

percent) with 32 states seeing increases (see Map 2.3 and Table 2.4). This is likely an indication that as the

housing market recovers, rents are increasing.


49

table 2.4

c H A N g E i N P O O r r E N T E r H O u S E H O L d S ( P r H ) w i T H S E v E r E H O u S i N g c O S T b u r d E N ( S H c b ) , 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

st 2014 prh with shcb

2013 prh with shcb % change

aK 9,607 4,855 97.9%

al 111,385 104,002 7.1%

ar 59,504 62,348 -4.6%

aZ 138,210 132,836 4.0%

ca 867,948 861,575 0.7%

co 100,302 94,933 5.7%

ct 61,782 58,880 4.9%

dc 19,932 21,287 -6.4%

de 14,651 12,820 14.3%

Fl 411,315 401,344 2.5%

ga 227,344 220,192 3.2%

hi 18,906 16,853 12.2%

ia 46,463 55,951 -17.0%

id 26,663 27,455 -2.9%

il 251,808 265,420 -5.1%

in 128,012 135,098 -5.5%

Ks 52,405 53,330 -1.7%

Ky 96,805 89,179 8.6%

la 109,635 113,120 -3.1%

ma 128,137 118,239 8.4%

md 85,413 84,026 1.7%

me 29,117 23,527 23.8%

mi 220,803 211,904 4.2%

mn 84,149 88,558 -5.0%

mo 128,567 128,926 -0.3%

ms 68,710 69,742 -1.5%

st 2014 prh with shcb

2013 prh with shcb % change

mt 19,693 20,638 -4.6%

nc 229,862 205,835 11.7%

nd 13,272 14,010 -5.3%

ne 29,080 37,795 -23.1%

nh 17,856 17,405 2.6%

nJ 149,095 158,661 -6.0%

nm 42,817 42,730 0.2%

nv 60,089 58,551 2.6%

ny 517,334 518,697 -0.3%

oh 274,402 263,390 4.2%

oK 72,460 70,561 2.7%

or 98,446 96,494 2.0%

pa 248,120 241,261 2.8%

ri 25,368 22,126 14.7%

sc 94,425 91,603 3.1%

sd 13,142 11,662 12.7%

tn 147,973 136,307 8.6%

tX 537,200 497,207 8.0%

ut 32,453 40,105 -19.1%

va 138,283 125,055 10.6%

vt 6,558 8,868 -26.0%

Wa 127,624 127,564 0.0%

Wi 115,969 110,977 4.5%

Wv 32,497 35,610 -8.7%

Wy 10,083 7,434 35.6%

usa 6,551,674 6,416,946 2.1%


50

map 2.4

c H A N g E i N P E O P L E i N P O O r H O u S E H O L d S d O u b L E d u P, 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

PeoPle in PooR HouseHolds liVinG doubled uP

People who are living with family and friends are described as living doubled up. while some people

may choose to live doubled up for personal reasons, others are likely doubled up because they cannot

afford housing independently and some of them may be at risk of homelessness. Not surprisingly, living

doubled up has consistently been shown as the most common prior housed living situation of people who

become homeless.11

Nationally, the number of people in poor households living doubled up decreased significantly (9.0 percent)

with only 3 states seeing increases in the size of this population, and those increases were relatively small

(see Map 2.4 and Table 2.5). California and Texas saw the largest decreases in this population with 72,580

and 56,015 less people respectively.

11 People living in precarious doubled up situations (unable to remain for more than 14 days or moving repeatedly) are not included in point-in-time counts, but are eligible for homeless assistance.


51

table 2.5

c H A N g E i N P E O P L E i N P O O r H O u S E H O L d S ( H H ) d O u b L E d u P, 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

st2014 people in poor hh doubled up

2013 people in poor hh doubled up

% change

aK 14,306 14,656 -2.4%

al 130,302 133,912 -2.7%

ar 72,916 77,155 -5.5%

aZ 196,349 206,783 -5.0%

ca 1,108,973 1,181,553 -6.1%

co 73,165 85,590 -14.5%

ct 46,905 54,698 -14.2%

dc 13,363 17,346 -23.0%

de 15,001 22,901 -34.5%

Fl 583,094 623,306 -6.5%

ga 265,803 305,680 -13.0%

hi 31,375 27,946 12.3%

ia 36,879 38,283 -3.7%

id 27,331 29,849 -8.4%

il 259,484 292,578 -11.3%

in 117,799 143,349 -17.8%

Ks 34,754 44,769 -22.4%

Ky 98,596 114,836 -14.1%

la 130,043 146,393 -11.2%

ma 93,404 109,556 -14.7%

md 103,047 99,955 3.1%

me 17,437 24,611 -29.1%

mi 204,422 249,982 -18.2%

mn 66,630 74,513 -10.6%

mo 106,391 124,360 -14.4%

ms 104,861 114,285 -8.2%

st2014 people in poor hh doubled up

2013 people in poor hh doubled up

% change

mt 18,086 19,635 -7.9%

nc 240,982 265,088 -9.1%

nd 5,111 11,179 -54.3%

ne 22,839 27,158 -15.9%

nh 13,229 20,349 -35.0%

nJ 149,935 169,075 -11.3%

nm 73,599 72,998 0.8%

nv 62,485 75,294 -17.0%

ny 488,152 503,403 -3.0%

oh 208,079 240,832 -13.6%

oK 77,048 79,389 -2.9%

or 79,774 87,833 -9.2%

pa 228,077 244,446 -6.7%

ri 15,389 22,851 -32.7%

sc 120,235 136,836 -12.1%

sd 13,654 17,192 -20.6%

tn 166,863 167,914 -0.6%

tX 642,970 698,985 -8.0%

ut 39,324 44,507 -11.6%

va 135,708 142,371 -4.7%

vt 7,529 9,536 -21.0%

Wa 115,409 125,749 -8.2%

Wi 71,298 91,814 -22.3%

Wv 44,002 49,738 -11.5%

Wy 6,679 8,296 -19.5%

usa 6,999,086 7,691,313 -9.0%


52

cHAPTEr TwO SuMMAry

Table 2.6 summarizes trends in populations at risk of homelessness between 2013 and 2014.

table 2.6

c H A N g E i N P O P u L AT i O N S AT r i S K O F H O M E L E S S N E S S by S TAT E , 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

st persons in poverty poverty rate* unemployed

personsunemployment

rate*

poor renter households with severe housing

cost burden

people in poor households living doubled

up

ak 20.3% 11.2 -1.0% 6.8 97.9% -2.4%

al 3.0% 19.3 -6.9% 6.8 7.1% -2.7%

ar -3.8% 18.9 -17.1% 6.1 -4.6% -5.5%

aZ -0.6% 18.2 -10.2% 6.9 4.0% -5.0%

ca -1.1% 16.4 -15.2% 7.5 0.7% -6.1%

co -5.5% 12.0 -25.2% 5.0 5.7% -14.5%

ct 0.2% 10.8 -13.7% 6.6 4.9% -14.2%

dc -4.2% 17.7 -7.4% 7.8 -6.4% -23.0%

de 2.0% 12.5 13.0% 5.7 14.3% -34.5%

fl -1.3% 16.5 -12.6% 6.3 2.5% -6.5%

ga -2.5% 18.3 -12.4% 7.2 3.2% -13.0%

hi 5.6% 11.4 -7.6% 4.4 12.2% 12.3%

ia -3.0% 12.2 -5.6% 4.4 -17.0% -3.7%

id -3.5% 14.8 -20.5% 4.8 -2.9% -8.4%

il -2.2% 14.4 -22.5% 7.1 -5.1% -11.3%

in -4.0% 15.2 -20.3% 6.0 -5.5% -17.8%

ks -2.7% 13.6 -14.2% 4.5 -1.7% -22.4%

kY 2.1% 19.1 -21.3% 6.5 8.6% -14.1%

la 1.0% 19.8 -2.9% 6.4 -3.1% -11.2%

ma -1.7% 11.6 -13.4% 5.8 8.4% -14.7%

md 0.7% 10.1 -12.3% 5.8 1.7% 3.1%

me 1.2% 14.1 -15.0% 5.7 23.8% -29.1%

mi -4.8% 16.2 -17.5% 7.3 4.2% -18.2%

mn 3.2% 11.5 -16.9% 4.1 -5.0% -10.6%

mo -2.4% 15.5 -7.5% 6.1 -0.3% -14.4%

ms -10.5% 21.5 -13.1% 7.8 -1.5% -8.2%


53

st persons in poverty poverty rate* unemployed

personsunemployment

rate*

poor renter households with severe housing

cost burden

people in poor households living doubled

up

mt -5.9% 15.4 -12.8% 4.7 -4.6% -7.9%

nc -2.7% 17.2 -22.8% 6.1 11.7% -9.1%

nd -0.2% 11.5 -3.1% 2.8 -5.3% -54.3%

ne -5.1% 12.4 -12.1% 3.3 -23.1% -15.9%

nh 5.8% 9.2 -15.3% 4.3 2.6% -35.0%

nJ -2.6% 11.1 -18.8% 6.6 -6.0% -11.3%

nm -2.7% 21.3 -5.7% 6.5 0.2% 0.8%

nv -1.6% 15.2 -18.2% 7.8 2.6% -17.0%

nY 0.2% 15.9 -18.3% 6.3 -0.3% -3.0%

oh -0.6% 15.8 -23.2% 5.7 4.2% -13.6%

ok -0.5% 16.6 -16.8% 4.5 2.7% -2.9%

or 0.4% 16.6 -10.1% 6.9 2.0% -9.2%

pa -0.5% 13.6 -22.6% 5.8 2.8% -6.7%

ri 0.8% 14.3 -17.7% 7.7 14.7% -32.7%

sc -1.9% 18.0 -15.1% 6.4 3.1% -12.1%

sd 1.2% 14.2 -9.4% 3.4 12.7% -20.6%

tn 4.0% 18.3 -16.2% 6.7 8.6% -0.6%

tx -0.1% 17.2 -17.1% 5.1 8.0% -8.0%

ut -5.9% 11.7 -17.6% 3.8 -19.1% -11.6%

va 1.6% 11.8 -8.7% 5.2 10.6% -4.7%

vt -1.2% 12.2 -7.9% 4.1 -26.0% -21.0%

wa -5.5% 13.2 -10.4% 6.2 0.0% -8.2%

wi -2.3% 13.2 -18.2% 5.5 4.5% -22.3%

wv -1.4% 18.3 -4.5% 6.5 -8.7% -11.5%

wY 2.8% 11.2 -8.7% 4.3 35.6% -19.5%

usa -1.2% 15.5 -16.0% 6.2 2.1% -9.0%

* Column represents change in percentage point.

CHAPTER THREE

H O M E L E SS A SS i STA N c Ei N A M E r i cA

3Every year, communities conduct a housing inventory count (HIC) in conjunction

with the point-in-time count, enumerating emergency shelter, transitional hous-

ing, permanent supportive housing, and, beginning in 2013, rapid re-housing beds.

Regardless of the funding source for the bed, communities are required to report

on all beds for use by people experiencing homelessness. Funding sources include

HUD, VA, and the Runaway and Homeless youth program administered by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Longitudinal trends in bed inventory show an increasing shift in homeless assistance

toward permanent housing solutions. Permanent supportive housing beds contin-

ued multi-year increases in 2015 and rapid re-housing (short-term assistance to help

people access permanent housing) capacity increased significantly for the second

year. The decrease in transitional housing that started in 2011 became steeper. In this

chapter, housing inventory data is used to estimate the capacity of the homeless

assistance system on a given night.

As part of the housing inventory and point-in-time efforts, communities also report

on the number people in emergency shelter and transitional housing. This chapter

also includes an analysis of utilization rates for those two bed types.

The STaTe Of hOmeleSSneSS in america chapTer Three

55

table 3.1

H O M E L E S S A S S i S TA N c E by b E d T y P E A N d TA r g E T H O u S E H O L d T y P E , 2 0 1 5

households With children

households Without children

only child households total

emergency shelter 133,007 128,575 2,858 264,440

transitional housing 83,693 76,911 1,223 161,827

permanent supportive housing 119,194 199,327 691 319,212

rapid re-housing 44,861 15,433 18 60,312

overall 380,755 420,246 4,790 805,791

NATiONAL HOMELESS ASSiSTANcE SySTEM cAPAciTy

In January 2015, communities across the nation reported a total of 805,791 beds designated for people experiencing homelessness (see Table 3.1). Permanent supportive housing represents the largest propor-tion of beds available for people experiencing homelessness, making up 39.6 percent of available beds. 32.8 percent of all beds were designated as emergency shelter and 20.0 percent were transitional housing beds.12 The number of rapid re-housing beds, which has been increasing drastically since 2013, comprised 7.5 percent of all beds.

TrENdS iN HOMELESS ASSiSTANcE SySTEM cAPAciTy ANd uTiLiZATiON

From 2007 to 2015, the number of emergency shelter (ES) and permanent supportive housing (PSH) beds increased by 25.1 percent and 69.2 percent, respectively (see Figure 3.1). In this same time period, the number of transitional housing (TH) beds decreased by 23.4 percent. From 2013 to 2015, the number of rapid rehousing (RRH) beds increased by 203.9 percent.

People living in permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing are no longer considered homeless for the purposes of the point-in-time count (see Chapter 1). Only those in emergency shelter and transitional housing are counted as homeless on the night of the point-in-time count. Nationally, emergency shelter and transitional housing beds could assist 76 percent of the total homeless population on a single night in January 2015; however, geographic and population mismatches may prevent every bed from being filled (see Figure 3.2).

12 Throughout this chapter, Safe Haven beds are included in transitional housing totals.

Chapter three the State Of hOmeleSSneSS in ameriCa

56

figure 3.1

H O u S i N g i N v E N T O ry, 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5


57

figure 3.2

H O u S i N g S y S T E M c A PA c i T y, 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5


58

Homeless assistance bed utiliZation

Utilization of available homeless assistance beds has consistently been above 90 percent since 2007 (see

Figure 3.3). In 2015, 91.8 percent of beds were full on a given night, but rates for emergency shelter utiliza-

tion and transitional housing utilization differ significantly.

In 2015, 98.1 percent of emergency shelter beds were full on a given night, while only 81.7 percent of transitional

housing beds were full (see figures 3.4 and 3.5). This disparity in rates of utilization between transitional

housing and emergency shelter has existed since 2007 and persists despite large increases in emergency

shelter capacity and significant decreases in transitional housing capacity. This indicates that investments

in crisis housing should likely go to programs like emergency shelter that have higher utilization rates and

contribute to efforts to keep the largest numbers of people from sleeping outside.

figure 3.3

b E d u T i L i Z AT i O N T r E N d S , 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5


59

figure 3.5

T r A N S i T i O N A L H O u S i N g u T i L i Z AT i O N, 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5

figure 3.4

E M E r g E N c y S H E LT E r u T i L i Z AT i O N, 2 0 0 7 -2 0 1 5


60

STATE TrENdS iN HOMELESS ASSiSTANcE bEd cAPAciTy ANd uTiLiZATiON

emeRGency sHelteR

Emergency shelter bed capacity increased nationally by 6.0 percent from 2014 to 2015, but trends varied among states: 30 states reported increases in emergency shelter capacity, while 20 states and D.C. reported decreases (see Map 3.1 and Table 3.2). The largest increases in emergency shelter capacity were in New york (8,865 more beds), California (2,998 more beds), and Massachusetts (2,674 more beds).

The trends in New york and Massachusetts are impacted by what are known as “right to shelter” policies, meaning a jurisdiction is legally required to provide emergency shelter to prevent an individual or family from sleeping outside. without the concentrated increases seen in the New york and Massachusetts “right to shelter” jurisdictions, the country would have only have seen about a 3,500 bed increase in emergency shelter capacity.

Nationally, the utilization rate of emergency shelter beds13 was 98.1 percent at the time of the 2015 point-in-time counts, but utilization varied across states. 17 states had emergency shelter utilization rates at above 100 percent (see Map 3.2 and Table 3.2).14 These states are concentrated, but not exclusively so, in regions of the country that are colder in January when point-in-time counts are conducted.

13 Utilization rates are calculated using year-round emergency bed capacity. The calculations do not include seasonal beds that are only available under specific circumstances.

14 As utilization rates are calculated using year-round emergency shelter bed capacity, places that have seasonal beds or flexible capacity to add emergency shelter capacity can . The calculations do not include seasonal beds that are only available under specific circumstances.

PHOTOGRAPHy CREDIT: PISAPHOTOGRAPHy/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM


61

map 3.1

c H A N g E i N E M E r g E N c y S H E LT E r b E d c A PA c i T y, 2 0 1 4 - 1 0 1 5


62

map 3.2

E M E r g E N c y S H E LT E r b E d u T i L i Z AT i O N, 2 0 1 5


63

PHOTOGRAPHy CREDIT: PRASzKIEwICz/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM


64

table 3.2

c H A N g E i N E M E r g E N c y S H E LT E r ( E S ) b E d c A PA c i T y A N d u T i L i Z AT i O N, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st 2015 people in es

2015 es beds

% beds Filled, 2015

2014 people in es

2014 es beds

% beds Filled, 2014

% change in es beds

change in utilization*

aK 1,127 1,184 95.2% 1,139 1,189 95.8% -0.4% -0.6

al 1,574 1,868 84.3% 1,851 1,838 100.7% 1.6% -16.4

ar 1,161 1,727 67.2% 1,021 1,466 69.6% 17.8% -2.4

aZ 3,395 3,692 92.0% 4,291 4,481 95.8% -17.6% -3.8

ca 22,750 20,857 109.1% 20,964 17,869 117.3% 16.7% -8.2

co 3,782 3,263 115.9% 4,002 3,753 106.6% -13.1% 9.3

ct 2,418 2,295 105.4% 2,481 2,238 110.9% 2.5% -5.5

dc 5,085 4,843 105.0% 5,754 5,157 111.6% -6.1% -6.6

de 529 588 90.0% 435 552 78.8% 6.5% 11.2

Fl 9,894 10,891 90.8% 10,250 10,286 99.7% 5.9% -8.8

ga 3,984 4,416 90.2% 4,441 4,765 93.2% -7.3% -3.0

gu 73 132 55.3% 57 102 55.9% 29.4% -0.6

hi 1,257 1,404 89.5% 1,162 1,492 77.9% -5.9% 11.6

ia 1,225 1,615 75.9% 1,387 1,681 82.5% -3.9% -6.7

id 790 939 84.1% 739 859 86.0% 9.3% -1.9

il 4,684 4,918 95.2% 5,031 5,174 97.2% -4.9% -2.0

in 3,082 3,715 83.0% 3,376 3,796 88.9% -2.1% -6.0

Ks 1,353 1,844 73.4% 1,460 1,852 78.8% -0.4% -5.5

Ky 2,281 2,320 98.3% 2,382 2,198 108.4% 5.6% -10.1

la 1,306 1,931 67.6% 1,451 1,976 73.4% -2.3% -5.8

ma 17,444 13,961 124.9% 16,835 11,287 149.2% 23.7% -24.2

md 3,953 3,014 131.2% 3,703 2,818 131.4% 7.0% -0.3

me 1,085 1,204 90.1% 1,107 1,184 93.5% 1.7% -3.4

mi 5,393 5,634 95.7% 5,513 5,348 103.1% 5.3% -7.4

mn 3,764 3,639 103.4% 4,414 4,041 109.2% -9.9% -5.8

mo 3,379 4,128 81.9% 3,521 3,882 90.7% 6.3% -8.8

ms 523 729 71.7% 732 763 95.9% -4.5% -24.2


65

st 2015 people in es

2015 es beds

% beds Filled, 2015

2014 people in es

2014 es beds

% beds Filled, 2014

% change in es beds


mt 535 761 70.3% 471 746 63.1% 2.0% 7.2

nc 5,672 6,062 93.6% 5,631 6,008 93.7% 0.9% -0.2

nd 640 770 83.1% 639 736 86.8% 0.9% -3.7

ne 1,493 1,559 95.8% 1,584 1,735 91.3% -10.1% 4.5

nh 770 748 102.9% 710 739 96.1% 1.2% 6.9

nJ 6,877 4,618 148.9% 7,692 4,543 169.3% 1.7% -20.4

nm 1,387 1,265 109.6% 1,409 1,375 102.5% -8.0% 7.2

nv 3,251 2,904 111.9% 3,582 3,523 101.7% -17.6% 10.3

ny 75,646 77,017 98.2% 66,893 68,152 98.2% 13.0% 0.1

oh 6,942 6,676 104.0% 7,043 6,660 105.8% 0.2% -1.8

oK 2,309 2,933 78.7% 2,499 2,962 84.4% -1.0% -5.6

or 3,214 3,062 105.0% 2,767 2,952 93.7% 3.7% 11.2

pa 7,576 8,452 89.6% 7,733 8,053 96.0% 5.0% -6.4

pr 399 646 61.8% 406 589 68.9% 9.7% -7.2

ri 743 705 105.4% 803 759 105.8% -7.1% -0.4

sc 1,639 1,676 97.8% 1,782 1,653 107.8% 1.4% -10.0

sd 642 1,112 57.7% 528 1,154 45.8% -3.6% 12.0

tn 3,540 4,237 83.5% 4,160 3,628 114.7% 16.8% -31.1

tX 10,244 13,382 76.6% 10,601 12,942 81.9% 3.4% -5.4

ut 1,912 1,697 112.7% 1,762 1,535 114.8% 10.6% -2.1

va 4,453 3,942 113.0% 4,281 3,816 112.2% 3.3% 0.8

vi 53 82 64.6% 51 84 60.7% -2.4% 3.9

vt 1,082 583 185.6% 1,031 653 157.9% -10.7% 27.7

Wa 6,624 7,415 89.3% 6,202 7,209 86.0% 2.9% 3.3

Wi 3,112 3,656 85.1% 3,111 3,436 90.5% 6.4% -5.4

Wv 1,020 1,279 79.7% 1,189 1,363 87.2% -6.2% -7.5

Wy 231 450 51.3% 268 445 60.2% 1.1% -8.9

usa 259,297 264,440 98.1% 254,327 249,497 101.9% 6.0% -3.9



66

map 3.3

c H A N g E i N T r A N S i T i O N A L H O u S i N g b E d c A PA c i T y, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

tRansitional HousinG

Transitional housing bed capacity decreased nationally by 7.7 percent from 2014 to 2015 with 40 states and D.C. reporting decreases in capacity (see Map 3.3 and Table 3.3). The largest decreases in transitional housing capacity were in Texas (2,071 fewer beds) and California (1,094 fewer beds).

Nationally, the utilization rate of transitional housing beds was 81.7 percent at the time of the 2015 point-in-time counts, but utilization varied across states (see Map 3.4 and Table 3.3). Five states had transitional housing utilization rates above 90 percent (about the national rate of emergency shelter utilization): Arizona, Connecticut, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Vermont. Similar to high emergency shelter utilization rates, these states with higher rates are concentrated, but not exclusively so, in regions of the country that are colder in January when point-in-time counts are conducted.


67

map 3.4

T r A N S i T i O N A L H O u S i N g b E d u T i L i Z AT i O N, 2 0 1 5


68

st 2015 people in th

2015 th beds

% beds Filled, 2015

2014 people in th

2014 th beds

% beds Filled, 2014

% change in th beds


aK 512 676 75.7% 500 625 80.0% 8.2% -4.3

al 1,369 1,745 78.5% 1,667 1,886 88.4% -7.5% -9.9

ar 517 759 68.1% 482 685 70.4% 10.8% -2.2

aZ 3,544 3,781 93.7% 3,635 4,392 82.8% -13.9% 11.0

ca 19,289 25,072 76.9% 21,551 26,166 82.4% -4.2% -5.4

co 3,352 4,390 76.4% 4,081 4,713 86.6% -6.9% -10.2

ct 1,003 1,104 90.9% 1,050 1,173 89.5% -5.9% 1.3

dc 1,669 2,120 78.7% 1,598 2,124 75.2% -0.2% 3.5

de 387 558 69.4% 429 620 69.2% -10.0% 0.2

Fl 8,989 11,135 80.7% 9,601 12,030 79.8% -7.4% 0.9

ga 4,003 4,803 83.3% 3,773 4,491 84.0% 6.9% -0.7

gu 14 22 63.6% 69 84 82.1% -73.8% -18.5

hi 2,520 2,959 85.2% 2,651 2,844 93.2% 4.0% -8.0

ia 1,653 1,991 83.0% 1,539 1,962 78.4% 1.5% 4.6

id 707 920 76.8% 729 909 80.2% 1.2% -3.4

il 5,779 7,057 81.9% 6,378 7,502 85.0% -5.9% -3.1

in 2,198 2,796 78.6% 2,192 3,046 72.0% -8.2% 6.6

Ks 930 1,135 81.9% 1,074 1,336 80.4% -15.0% 1.5

Ky 1,515 1,767 85.7% 1,876 2,064 90.9% -14.4% -5.2

la 1,584 2,097 75.5% 2,052 2,598 79.0% -19.3% -3.4

ma 3,098 3,746 82.7% 3,643 4,184 87.1% -10.5% -4.4

md 2,641 3,062 86.3% 2,564 3,132 81.9% -2.2% 4.4

me 1,228 1,372 89.5% 1,526 1,546 98.7% -11.3% -9.2

mi 4,051 4,703 86.1% 4,562 5,295 86.2% -11.2% -0.0

mn 2,941 3,140 93.7% 3,168 3,295 96.1% -4.7% -2.5

mo 2,032 2,572 79.0% 2,788 3,402 82.0% -24.4% -2.9

ms 618 769 80.4% 673 844 79.7% -8.9% 0.6

table 3.3

c H A N g E i N T r A N S i T i O N A L H O u S i N g b E d ( T H ) c A PA c i T y A N d u T i L i Z AT i O N, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5


69

st 2015 people in th

2015 th beds

% beds Filled, 2015

2014 people in th

2014 th beds

% beds Filled, 2014

% change in th beds


mt 302 463 65.2% 440 591 74.5% -11.9% -9.2

nc 2,588 3,275 79.0% 3,243 3,716 87.3% -11.9% -8.2

nd 179 196 91.3% 155 200 77.5% -2.0% 13.8

ne 1,128 1,414 79.8% 1,333 1,711 77.9% -17.4% 1.9

nh 543 621 87.4% 533 659 80.9% -5.8% 6.6

nJ 2,247 3,119 72.0% 3,044 3,018 100.9% 3.3% -28.8

nm 788 1,012 77.9% 909 950 95.7% 6.5% -17.8

nv 1,277 1,562 81.8% 1,215 1,652 73.5% -5.4% 8.2

ny 8,582 9,561 89.8% 9,594 10,354 92.7% -7.7% -2.9

oh 3,141 3,597 87.3% 3,677 4,099 89.7% -12.2% -2.4

oK 690 871 79.2% 760 918 82.8% -5.1% -3.6

or 2,617 3,082 84.9% 3,334 3,972 83.9% -22.4% 1.0

pa 6,417 7,688 83.5% 6,568 7,869 83.5% -2.3% 0.0

pr 1,022 1,466 69.7% 1,000 1,373 72.8% 6.8% -3.1

ri 332 437 76.0% 367 466 78.8% -6.2% -2.8

sc 1,819 2,079 87.5% 1,467 1,820 80.6% 14.2% 6.9

sd 258 348 74.1% 302 593 50.9% -41.3% 23.2

tn 2,339 2,744 85.2% 2,223 3,163 70.3% -13.2% 15.0

tX 5,948 7,430 80.1% 7,627 9,501 80.3% -21.8% -0.2

ut 887 1,063 83.4% 1,006 1,205 83.5% -11.8% -0.0

va 1,737 2,135 81.4% 2,049 2,458 83.4% -13.1% -2.0

vi 32 46 69.6% 34 43 79.1% 7.0% -9.5

vt 291 320 90.9% 365 387 94.3% -17.3% -3.4

Wa 5,674 7,061 80.4% 6,338 7,677 82.6% -8.0% -2.2

Wi 2,503 3,047 82.1% 2,601 3,068 84.8% -0.7% -2.6

Wv 383 536 71.5% 394 602 65.4% -11.0% 6.0

Wy 276 403 68.5% 295 370 79.7% 8.9% -11.2

usa 132,143 161,827 81.7% 146,724 175,383 83.7% -7.7% -2.0



70

map 3.5

c H A N g E i N P E r M A N E N T S u P P O rT i v E H O u S i N g b E d c A PA c i T y, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

PeRmanent suPPoRtiVe HousinG

Permanent supportive housing (PSH) bed capacity increased nationally by 6.3 percent from 2014 to 2015, but trends varied among states: 35 states reported increases in PSH capacity, while 15 states and D.C. reported decreases (see Map 3.5 and Table 3.4). The largest increases in PSH capacity were reported in Delaware (21.6 percent), Georgia (20.2 percent), and South Dakota (18.1 percent).


71

table 3.4

c H A N g E i N P E r M A N E N T S u P P O rT i v E H O u S i N g ( P S H ) c A PA c i T y c H A N g E , 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

st 2015 psh beds 2014 psh beds % change

aK 776 715 8.5%

al 2,995 2,891 3.6%

ar 708 923 -23.3%

aZ 6,789 7,358 -7.7%

ca 50,760 45,580 11.4%

co 3,334 3,091 7.9%

ct 6,216 5,705 9.0%

dc 5,679 6,414 -11.5%

de 727 598 21.6%

Fl 16,271 15,742 3.4%

ga 8,319 6,923 20.2%

gu 104 102 2.0%

hi 1,305 1,220 7.0%

ia 1,022 1,098 -6.9%

id 854 835 2.3%

il 12,162 12,317 -1.3%

in 3,171 2,947 7.6%

Ks 1,400 1,408 -0.6%

Ky 3,347 3,077 8.8%

la 4,634 4,596 0.8%

ma 11,088 11,948 -7.2%

md 7,405 7,145 3.6%

me 2,764 2,464 12.2%

mi 8,026 8,644 -7.1%

mn 12,372 10,921 13.3%

mo 5,016 5,659 -11.4%

ms 314 530 -40.8%

st 2015 psh beds 2014 psh beds % change

mt 550 564 -2.5%

nc 6,250 5,597 11.7%

nd 746 650 14.8%

ne 1,024 1,033 -0.9%

nh 1,110 1,083 2.5%

nJ 5,939 5,724 3.8%

nm 2,049 1,771 15.7%

nv 2,587 2,842 -9.0%

ny 39,971 34,698 15.2%

oh 15,824 14,211 11.4%

oK 1,517 1,392 9.0%

or 5,889 5,835 0.9%

pa 13,610 11,862 14.7%

pr 1,721 1,988 -13.4%

ri 1,506 1,493 0.9%

sc 1,976 1,748 13.0%

sd 621 526 18.1%

tn 4,800 4,563 5.2%

tX 13,058 12,209 7.0%

ut 2,403 2,264 6.1%

va 4,020 3,582 12.2%

vi 35 22 59.1%

vt 529 598 -11.5%

Wa 9,628 9,046 6.4%

Wi 2,918 2,675 9.1%

Wv 1,166 1,219 -4.3%

Wy 207 236 -12.3%

usa 319,212 300,282 6.3%


72

map 3.6

c H A N g E i N r A P i d r E - H O u S i N g b E d c A PA c i T y, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5

11 For the purposes of the Housing Inventory, a rapid re-housing bed is one for which rental assistance from any source is being provided on the night of the count.

RaPid Re-HousinG

Rapid re-housing (RRH) capacity increased nationally by 60 percent from 2014 to 2015, but trends varied among states: 37 states and D.C. reported increases in RRH capacity, while 13 states reported decreases (see Map 3.6 and Table 3.5). Sixteen of the 37 states that reported increases in RRH more than doubled their RRH capacity from 2014 to 2015.

The number of rapid re-housing beds, which has been increasing drastically since 2013, comprised 7.5 percent of all beds in January 2015, but the concentration of rapid re-housing varies greatly among the states (see Map 3.7 and Table 3.5). In 11 states and D.C., RRH comprised more than 10 percent of a state’s overall bed capacity in January 2015.


73

map 3.7

P r O P O rT i O N O F Ov E r A L L b E d S T H AT A r E r A P i d r E - H O u S i N g , 2 0 1 5


74

table 3.5

c H A N g E i N r A P i d r E - H O u S i N g c A PA c i T y, 2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 A N d P r O P O rT i O N O F Ov E r A L L b E d S T H AT A r E r A P i d r E - H O u S i N g , 2 0 1 5

st 2015 rrh beds

2014 rrh beds

% change

total beds (es, rrh, th, psh)

proportion of beds that

are rrh

aK 35 158 -77.8% 2,671 1.3%

al 720 53 1258.5% 7,328 9.8%

ar 124 157 -21.0% 3,318 3.7%

aZ 1,543 557 177.0% 15,805 9.8%

ca 6,673 3,621 84.3% 103,362 6.5%

co 849 388 118.8% 11,836 7.2%

ct 406 247 64.4% 10,021 4.1%

dc 2,921 2,326 25.6% 15,563 18.8%

de 176 130 35.4% 2,049 8.6%

Fl 3,126 1,702 83.7% 41,423 7.5%

ga 991 521 90.2% 18,529 5.3%

gu - - - 258 0.0%

hi 54 78 -30.8% 5,722 0.9%

ia 271 264 2.7% 4,899 5.5%

id 306 219 39.7% 3,019 10.1%

il 976 625 56.2% 25,113 3.9%

in 1,248 976 27.9% 10,930 11.4%

Ks 186 232 -19.8% 4,565 4.1%

Ky 212 179 18.4% 7,646 2.8%

la 814 502 62.2% 9,476 8.6%

ma 2,515 2,370 6.1% 31,310 8.0%

md 601 247 143.3% 14,082 4.3%

me 173 60 188.3% 5,513 3.1%

mi 1,729 586 195.1% 20,092 8.6%

mn 3,229 1,707 89.2% 22,380 14.4%

mo 907 623 45.6% 12,623 7.2%

ms 262 62 322.6% 2,074 12.6%

st 2015 rrh beds

2014 rrh beds

% change

total beds (es, rrh, th, psh)

proportion of beds that

are rrh

mt 50 102 -51.0% 1,824 2.7%

nc 1,340 1,667 -19.6% 16,927 7.9%

nd 16 43 -62.8% 1,728 0.9%

ne 417 123 239.0% 4,414 9.4%

nh 116 184 -37.0% 2,595 4.5%

nJ 1,201 1,274 -5.7% 14,877 8.1%

nm 336 159 111.3% 4,662 7.2%

nv 447 - - 7,500 6.0%

ny 3,055 966 216.3% 129,604 2.4%

oh 3,707 3,366 10.1% 29,804 12.4%

oK 104 32 225.0% 5,425 1.9%

or 2,000 931 114.8% 14,033 14.3%

pa 2,604 1,544 68.7% 32,354 8.0%

pr 272 43 532.6% 4,105 6.6%

ri 373 - - 3,021 12.3%

sc 265 353 -24.9% 5,996 4.4%

sd 80 60 33.3% 2,161 3.7%

tn 740 320 131.3% 12,521 5.9%

tX 2,059 1,404 46.7% 35,929 5.7%

ut 637 657 -3.0% 5,800 11.0%

va 2,029 2,062 -1.6% 12,126 16.7%

vi - - - 163 0.0%

vt 315 138 128.3% 1,747 18.0%

Wa 6,415 3,207 100.0% 30,519 21.0%

Wi 514 418 23.0% 10,135 5.1%

Wv 158 73 116.4% 3,139 5.0%

Wy 15 67 -77.6% 1,075 1.4%

usa 60,312 37,783 59.6% 805,791 7.5%


75


76

cHAPTEr THrEE SuMMAry

Table 3.6 summarizes the capacity and utilization rates of the different types of housing assistance

provided by the homeless assistance system.

table 3.6

c H A N g E S i N H O M E L E S S A S S i S TA N c E S y S T E M by S TAT E , 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 4

st change in number of es beds

change in es bed Utilization•

change in number of th beds

change th bed in Utilization•

change in number of psh beds

change in number of rrh beds

aK -0.4% -0.6 8.2% -4.3 8.5% -77.8%

al 1.6% -16.4 -7.5% -9.9 3.6% 1258.5%

ar 17.8% -2.4 10.8% -2.2 -23.3% -21.0%

aZ -17.6% -3.8 -13.9% 11.0 -7.7% 177.0%

ca 16.7% -8.2 -4.2% -5.4 11.4% 84.3%

co -13.1% 9.3 -6.9% -10.2 7.9% 118.8%

ct 2.5% -5.5 -5.9% 1.3 9.0% 64.4%

dc -6.1% -6.6 -0.2% 3.5 -11.5% 25.6%

de 6.5% 11.2 -10.0% 0.2 21.6% 35.4%

Fl 5.9% -8.8 -7.4% 0.9 3.4% 83.7%

ga -7.3% -3.0 6.9% -0.7 20.2% 90.2%

gu 29.4% -0.6 -73.8% -18.5 2.0% -

hi -5.9% 11.6 4.0% -8.0 7.0% -30.8%

ia -3.9% -6.7 1.5% 4.6 -6.9% 2.7%

id 9.3% -1.9 1.2% -3.4 2.3% 39.7%

il -4.9% -2.0 -5.9% -3.1 -1.3% 56.2%

in -2.1% -6.0 -8.2% 6.6 7.6% 27.9%

Ks -0.4% -5.5 -15.0% 1.5 -0.6% -19.8%

Ky 5.6% -10.1 -14.4% -5.2 8.8% 18.4%

la -2.3% -5.8 -19.3% -3.4 0.8% 62.2%

ma 23.7% -24.2 -10.5% -4.4 -7.2% 6.1%

md 7.0% -0.3 -2.2% 4.4 3.6% 143.3%

me 1.7% -3.4 -11.3% -9.2 12.2% 188.3%

mi 5.3% -7.4 -11.2% -0.0 -7.1% 195.1%

mn -9.9% -5.8 -4.7% -2.5 13.3% 89.2%

mo 6.3% -8.8 -24.4% -2.9 -11.4% 45.6%

ms -4.5% -24.2 -8.9% 0.6 -40.8% 322.6%


77

st change in number of es beds

change in es bed Utilization•

change in number of th beds

change th bed in Utilization•

change in number of psh beds

change in number of rrh beds

mt 2.0% 7.2 -21.7% -9.2 -2.5% -51.0%

nc 0.9% -0.2 -11.9% -8.2 11.7% -19.6%

nd 4.6% -3.7 -2.0% 13.8 14.8% -62.8%

ne -10.1% 4.5 -17.4% 1.9 -0.9% 239.0%

nh 1.2% 6.9 -5.8% 6.6 2.5% -37.0%

nJ 1.7% -20.4 3.3% -28.8 3.8% -5.7%

nm -8.0% 7.2 6.5% -17.8 15.7% 111.3%

nv -17.6% 10.3 -5.4% 8.2 -9.0% -

ny 13.0% 0.1 -7.7% -2.9 15.2% 216.3%

oh 0.2% -1.8 -12.2% -2.4 11.4% 10.1%

oK -1.0% -5.6 -5.1% -3.6 9.0% 225.0%

or 3.7% 11.2 -22.4% 1.0 0.9% 114.8%

pa 5.0% -6.4 -2.3% 0.0 14.7% 68.7%

pr 9.7% -7.2 6.8% -3.1 -13.4% 532.6%

ri -7.1% -0.4 -6.2% -2.8 0.9% -

sc 1.4% -10.0 14.2% 6.9 13.0% -24.9%

sd -3.6% 12.0 -41.3% 23.2 18.1% 33.3%

tn 16.8% -31.1 -13.2% 15.0 5.2% 131.3%

tX 3.4% -5.4 -21.8% -0.2 7.0% 46.7%

ut 10.6% -2.1 -11.8% -0.0 6.1% -3.0%

va 3.3% 0.8 -13.1% -2.0 12.2% -1.6%

vi -2.4% 3.9 7.0% -9.5 59.1% -

vt -10.7% 27.7 -17.3% -3.4 -11.5% 128.3%

Wa 2.9% 3.3 -8.0% -2.2 6.4% 100.0%

Wi 6.4% -5.4 -0.7% -2.6 9.1% 23.0%

Wv -6.2% -7.5 -11.0% 6.0 -4.3% 116.4%

Wy 1.1% -8.9 8.9% -11.2 -12.3% -77.6%

usa 6.0% -3.9 -7.7% -2.0 6.3% 59.6%


APPENDIX

M E T H O d O L O gy

The STaTe Of hOmeleSSneSS in america aPPenDiX

79

cHaPteR 1 HOMELESS POPuLATiONS ANd SubPOPuLATiONS

Data on overall homelessness and subpopulations are based on annual point-in-time (PIT) counts of homeless persons conducted by Continuums of Care (CoCs), local or regional entities that coordinate services and funding for homeless programs. In 2015, 406 CoCs throughout the United States, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, submitted homeless population data to HUD. This report used state and CoC-level point-in-time data from 2007 through 2015 in electronic format from HUD Exchange. • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment. HUD Exchange. PIT Data since 2007. Retrieved from: https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2007-2015-PIT-Counts-by-CoC.xlsx

cHaPteR 2 POPuLATiONS AT riSK OF HOMELESSNESS

Populations at risk of homelessness—persons in poverty, unemployed persons, poor renter households with severe housing cost burden, and people in poor households living doubled up—were identified based on the fundamental assumption that constrained re-sources, including low or poverty-level income, place individuals and households at risk for homelessness.

PoVeRty: numbeR of PeRsons and Rate

Data on poverty comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder. This data reports on the number of people and families whose income in the previous 12 months was below the U.S. poverty level. • U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. American

Community Survey 1-year Estimates, 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

unemPloyment: numbeR of PeRsons and Rate

Data on unemployment comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This report used statewide annual averages for the civilian non-institutionalized popu-lation. • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemploy-

ment Statistics Program, Statewide Data, Annual Av-erages Series, 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm

PooR RenteR HouseHolds WitHseVeRe HousinG cost buRden

Data on poor renter households with severe housing cost burden was calculated using variables from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Poverty Thresh-old Charts. These calculations included households who met all of the following conditions: households renting a housing unit, households whose total income falls under the poverty threshold for the household size (as specified by the Poverty Threshold Charts), and households paying 50 percent or more of total household income in housing rent. • Household, renter, and housing cost burden variables:

U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from: http://www2.census.gov/

• Household poverty status variable: U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Threshold Charts, 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

APPENDIX ThE STATE Of hOmElESSNESS IN AmErIcA

80

PooR PeoPle liVinG doubled uP

Data on poor people living doubled up was calcu-lated using variables from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This report defined poor people as persons living under 125 percent of the poverty level.

Persons who were defined as poor and who also fell into any of the following categories were included in these calculations: persons aged 22 years or older living with father and/or mother, persons living with brother and/or sister, persons living with father-in-law and/or mother-in-law, persons living with son-in-law and/or daughter-in-law, persons living with any other relative, persons living with any other non-relative.

Persons who met any of the following conditions were not included in these calculations: institutionalized persons, non-institutionalized persons living in group quarters, persons under the age of 22 years, married persons living with spouse, housemates/roommates, and boarders/roomers. • U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey

1-year Estimates, 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from: http://www2.census.gov/

cHaPteR 3 HOuSiNg iNvENTOry

Housing Inventory Count (HIC) data is based on annual point-in-time counts of beds conducted by Continuums of Care (CoCs), local or regional entities that coordinate services and funding for homeless programs. In 2015, 406 CoCs throughout the United States, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, submitted housing inventory data to HUD. This report used state and CoC-level housing inventory data from 2007 to 2015 in electronic format from HUD Exchange. • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment. HUD Exchange. HIC Data since 2007. Retrieved from: https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2007-2015-HIC-Counts-by-CoC.xlsx

The HIC data set for 2015 categorizes rapid re-housing beds into Demonstration Projects and Non-Demonstration Proj-ects. The data used for rapid re-housing beds includes both Demonstration Projects and Non-Demonstration Projects.

81

the state oF homelessness in america

improving policy - building capacity - educating opinion leaders

1518 K street, nW, 2nd FloorWashington, dc 20005

202-638-1526 endhomelessness.org

the of state homelessness in americareachadvocacy.org/.../12/stateofhomelessness-min.pdf · the...

Documents